PDA

View Full Version : september jobs



david gibson
10-08-2010, 09:15 AM
down 95,000!!

didnt biden say we would be adding 500,000 a month by now?? yeah, lovin that recovery summer!

this proves they have no clue what they are doing. i agree with stuart varney - the dems shot themselves in the foot by not voting on the tax cut extensions. who wants to hire when the future is so uncertain? who wants to have to lay off who you just hired when taxes go up again next january??

idiots idiots idiots

Goose
10-08-2010, 10:02 AM
U6 unemployment grew to 17.1% and a society built around a ponzi-keynesian scheme like we have will eventually collapse with those high numbers. We're very close. Our deficit for the fiscal year just ended will be around $1.3 trillion dollars so a nice job by President Deficit and Vice President Bite-Me. Maybe we can get Speaker Pelosi to issue some more food stamps to grow the economy. Keep your pantry stocked because we're doomed with this crew.

We live in Cuba now.

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 10:14 AM
down 95,000!!

didnt biden say we would be adding 500,000 a month by now?? yeah, lovin that recovery summer!

this proves they have no clue what they are doing. i agree with stuart varney - the dems shot themselves in the foot by not voting on the tax cut extensions. who wants to hire when the future is so uncertain? who wants to have to lay off who you just hired when taxes go up again next january??

idiots idiots idiots
You should actually be happy. Government jobs were down about 160,000 (offset by a growth in private sector jobs). Isn't that cut in government spending what you wanted? You can't have it both ways. As governments move to cut their deficits, public sector jobs will decline along with public services. Of course, we could make the deficit much worse by voting to extend those tax cuts. There is virtually no evidence that the original tax cuts helped increase employment. I don't think their expiration will cause a decline. The reality is that the bulk of the jobs created by economic growth over the last decade have been in other countries.

david gibson
10-08-2010, 10:39 AM
You should actually be happy. Government jobs were down about 160,000 (offset by a growth in private sector jobs). Isn't that cut in government spending what you wanted? You can't have it both ways. As governments move to cut their deficits, public sector jobs will decline along with public services. Of course, we could make the deficit much worse by voting to extend those tax cuts. There is virtually no evidence that the original tax cuts helped increase employment. I don't think their expiration will cause a decline. The reality is that the bulk of the jobs created by economic growth over the last decade have been in other countries.

i dont care how you try to spin it, it is a huge failure. govt jobs down? how many were temporary anyway?

the fact is the stimulus was supposed to be adding jobs in the private sector by now and it isnt. whether the tax cuts bush did created jobs or not is not the issue, what IS the issue is that small business will not hire right now for fear of a tax increase in january, or at least uncertainty because the democrats left without voting. they knew that if they voted to let the cuts expire they would lose votes in november, so they cut and run and this is what happens.

and i am sick and tired of hearing obama say that "they took 6 years to mess things up and expect me to fix it overnight".

no, mr obama, we dont. but we do expect a corrected course, and it hasnt happened. we do expect what you promised - and unemployment went WAY above 8% when you said if the stimulus was approved it would not go above 8%. and biden "is the fellow who promised last summer that by now wed finally have hundreds of thousands of new jobs being created every single month, thanks to all the stimulus spending that he promised was shovel-ready 19 months ago. He said nothing was more important to him and the co-worker he calls Barack than that three-letter word: J-O-B-S."

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2009/08/06/vchxue62wk.jpg

http://smithbeachwood.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/fail.jpg

dnf777
10-08-2010, 10:52 AM
[QUOTE=david gibson;687416]i dont care how you try to spin it, it is a huge failure. govt jobs down? how many were temporary anyway?


and i am sick and tired of hearing obama say that "they took 6 years to mess things up and expect me to fix it overnight".

You're right Dave, I agree. Now that I"ve admitted that, please tell me how long should we give a newly-branded republican congress to fix everything and restore jobs and economic prosperity to America. Lets assume they take the house and senate in 2010....is 2012 a reasonable time frame to expect full recovery...partial recovery? And if we're still in the economic doldrums come 2012, who do we put in the driver's seat then?

In all honesty, can YOU admit that the republicans had 6 years of unfettered republican congress/WH policy, and didn't do very well? And please, just like you don't like folks to blame Bush for everything, PLEASE don't blame 911 for everything either.

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 11:19 AM
[quote=david gibson;687416]i dont care how you try to spin it, it is a huge failure. govt jobs down? how many were temporary anyway?

....
A small share of the jobs lost were temporary census jobs. The bulk of the losses were permanent state and local government jobs: police, teachers and such who have been fired to balance budgets. There is pretty widespread agreement that the stimulus program created a lot of jobs in both the private and public sectors. One of the issues we are facing now is that these jobs are beginning to disappear as stimulus funds run out. In my mind, containing the deficit is now becoming more important than continuing to try to stimulate growth through government action. That means I oppose most efforts to increase government stimulus spending and I oppose most moves to extend tax cuts that would add to the deficit.

I believe that governments should operate on strict pay-go procedures going forward even if that results in higher unemployment, as I believe it will. That means no actions on taxes that are not "financed" by other spending and revenue actions, and no new spending that is not financed through revenue or spending actions. I do not care how justified the spending or tax cuts may be. They must be financed. The deficit for the last year is lower than the deficit in the year before. The deficit over the next year needs to be much lower still. The fact is that, as reported by the CBO today, 37% of every dollar spent by the Federal government over the last year has come from borrowing. That number needs to move back toward zero.

Buzz
10-08-2010, 11:38 AM
I actually hope like he!! that the republicans retake the house and senate.

I'm voting for the republican house candidate here in South Dakota.

I figure that if Herseth is going to pretend to be a republican, we may as well have a real one in there.

road kill
10-08-2010, 12:20 PM
[QUOTE=david gibson;687416]i dont care how you try to spin it, it is a huge failure. govt jobs down? how many were temporary anyway?


and i am sick and tired of hearing obama say that "they took 6 years to mess things up and expect me to fix it overnight".

You're right Dave, I agree. Now that I"ve admitted that, please tell me how long should we give a newly-branded republican congress to fix everything and restore jobs and economic prosperity to America. Lets assume they take the house and senate in 2010....is 2012 a reasonable time frame to expect full recovery...partial recovery? And if we're still in the economic doldrums come 2012, who do we put in the driver's seat then?

In all honesty, can YOU admit that the republicans had 6 years of unfettered republican congress/WH policy, and didn't do very well? And please, just like you don't like folks to blame Bush for everything, PLEASE don't blame 911 for everything either.
OK, I'll give this a try.

Right or wrong, I think (that's the key word here, think, I don't have a link, these are my thoughts), that if (and I say IF) the Republicans win the Senate & House we will see some confidence growth.
Right now both sides economist are saying hiring is on hold due to Congress not voting on the tax cuts.
Again, not argueing the merits, just an observation.

If a Republican house votes to maintain the cuts and Obama does not override them, we may see a jump in hiring.

Again, not argueing right or wrong, just my thoughts about what could happen and likely will.

This will not solve every thing, but it's a step in the right direction (IMO).


RK

Goose
10-08-2010, 12:50 PM
Hiring Republicans in November won't do anything except slow down the death train. The keynesians infiltrated them, too. There are few differences between Bush-Greenspan and Obama-Bernanke.

Take an ax to entitlements and do it now before it's too late. In five short years (at current pace) out national debt will approach 20 trillion dollars. Our society will collapse before this happens. Nuke the Fed and take an ax to entitlements and maybe we have a chance.

But it will never happen.

We live in Cuba now.

Buzz
10-08-2010, 02:07 PM
Then we can have a Libertarian utopia, just like Somalia.

tom
10-08-2010, 04:33 PM
but we do expect a corrected course, and it hasnt happened.

And the "corrected course" would be???????

So far all I hear is that everyone wants a tax cut!!!!

Well tell me, in the last 6 years just what jobs did the "Bush tax cuts" produce?????
The facts are that taxes have not, nor will they ever be what produces jobs!

WaterDogRem
10-08-2010, 04:43 PM
And the "corrected course" would be???????

So far all I hear is that everyone wants a tax cut!!!!

Well tell me, in the last 6 years just what jobs did the "Bush tax cuts" produce?????
The facts are that taxes have not, nor will they ever be what produces jobs!

What produces jobs? And How?

Buzz
10-08-2010, 04:45 PM
And the "corrected course" would be???????

So far all I hear is that everyone wants a tax cut!!!!

Well tell me, in the last 6 years just what jobs did the "Bush tax cuts" produce?????
The facts are that taxes have not, nor will they ever be what produces jobs!


My favorite is:

In the US, businesses pay the highest taxes of those in anywhere in the world.

The thing is, after all the write-offs, exemptions, loopholes, and shelters written into the tax code, what exactly does American business pay.

Maybe Jeff can find that!;-)

WaterDogRem
10-08-2010, 04:48 PM
My favorite is:

In the US, businesses pay the highest taxes of those in anywhere in the world.

The thing is, after all the write-offs, exemptions, loopholes, and shelters written into the tax code, what exactly does American business pay.

Maybe Jeff can find that!;-)

Businesses pay taxes?

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 05:02 PM
My favorite is:

In the US, businesses pay the highest taxes of those in anywhere in the world.

The thing is, after all the write-offs, exemptions, loopholes, and shelters written into the tax code, what exactly does American business pay.

Maybe Jeff can find that!;-)
Statutory rates are very high, but when I was a partner at one of the major accounting firms, none of our clients paid close to the statutory rate. Studies of consistently profitable Fortune 500 companies suggest that the average tax paid is around half the statutory tax because of the effects of various loopholes. For small businesses, a similar pattern is found, with average tax rates of 17-20%. (See, for example, http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php and http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs343.pdf) A GAO study estimates the dollar weighted average tax rate paid by US companies for US source income at about 25% and the tax paid on foreign source income at 2-3%. (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08950.pdf)

Personally, I tend to believe we should eliminate corporate income taxes but also treat all dividend and capital gain income as ordinary income. That would eliminate the double taxation now paid on corporate profits ad also treat income earned from labor the same as income earned from wealth.

Cody Covey
10-08-2010, 05:19 PM
And the "corrected course" would be???????

So far all I hear is that everyone wants a tax cut!!!!

Well tell me, in the last 6 years just what jobs did the "Bush tax cuts" produce?????
The facts are that taxes have not, nor will they ever be what produces jobs!
How about the first 6 years of the Bush administration aka the time where republicans actually had any say in the government. During this period Bush created over 2 million jobs. How much Since 2007 when the dems took over has been lost.

Buzz
10-08-2010, 05:44 PM
How about the first 6 years of the Bush administration aka the time where republicans actually had any say in the government. During this period Bush created over 2 million jobs. How much Since 2007 when the dems took over has been lost.

Republicans have plenty of say in government.

The most prominent being - NO

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 05:54 PM
How about the first 6 years of the Bush administration aka the time where republicans actually had any say in the government. During this period Bush created over 2 million jobs. How much Since 2007 when the dems took over has been lost.
Well, 2 million jobs over six years is slower than jobs have been growing for as long as anyone can remember. It works out to less than 28,000 jobs per month, or a small fraction of what is needed to handle normal population growth.. For comparison, private sector jobs under Obama have increased almost 900,000 since last December, or about 90,000 per month, a level that is clearly too anemic, but more than three times what happened under Bush. Over the full eight years of his Presidency, the total number of jobs grew 1.1 million under Bush. That compares with 22 million new jobs during the eight years of the Clinton Presidency. Republicans have never been that interested in jobs for anyone but themselves, and it has shown in their policies.:rolleyes: (http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2010/jul/25/sherrod-brown/sherrod-brown-touts-job-grown-during-clinton-presi/)

EDIT: To add a little context, total non-farm job growth under Bush was 1.1 million jobs. Government job growth was 1.5 million jobs. Private sector jobs actually declined during his presidency! (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet)

road kill
10-08-2010, 05:59 PM
Well, 2 million jobs over six years is slower than jobs have been growing for as long as anyone can remember. It works out to less than 28,000 jobs per month, or a small fraction of what is needed to handle normal population growth.. For comparison, private sector jobs under Obama have increased almost 900,000 since last December, or about 90,000 per month, a level that is clearly too anemic, but more than three times what happened under Bush. Over the full eight years of his Presidency, the total number of jobs grew 1.1 million under Bush. That compares with 22 million new jobs during the eight years of the Clinton Presidency. Republicans have never been that interested in jobs for anyone but themselves, and it has shown in their policies.:rolleyes:


Can you cut and paste a link telling how many jobs have been created (net of course) in the last 2 years?

Or does that matter??


RK

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 06:34 PM
Can you cut and paste a link telling how many jobs have been created (net of course) in the last 2 years?

Or does that matter??


RK
Approximately 3.25 million jobs have been lost since Obama became President. Total employment peaked at about 138 milion jobs in December 2007. 6.4 million jobs were then lost over the next 13 months of Bush's presidency. Almost 4 million jobs were lost over the balance of 2009, and the total number of jobs has grown over 500,000 since then. Government jobs dropped 100,000 in the first 11 months of the Obama Presidency and have dropped another 250,000 jobs during 2009. The rate of job loss began declining as soon as the stimulus program was adopted in March 2009. but job growth did not begin until the beginning of 2010. Private sector jobs have grown consistently since then with a net loss of government jobs, despite the temporary addition of 500,000 census workers.

BTW, the "authoritative" source of employment data is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can request customized tables and get the results directly from their database. I looked at seasonally adjusted, non-farm total employment and total government employment. You can also customize the time period of data reported for any period since 1939. The link is shown in my prior post.

road kill
10-08-2010, 07:50 PM
Approximately 3.25 million jobs have been lost since Obama became President. Total employment peaked at about 138 milion jobs in December 2007. 6.4 million jobs were then lost over the next 13 months of Bush's presidency. Almost 4 million jobs were lost over the balance of 2009, and the total number of jobs has grown over 500,000 since then. Government jobs dropped 100,000 in the first 11 months of the Obama Presidency and have dropped another 250,000 jobs during 2009. The rate of job loss began declining as soon as the stimulus program was adopted in March 2009. but job growth did not begin until the beginning of 2010. Private sector jobs have grown consistently since then with a net loss of government jobs, despite the temporary addition of 500,000 census workers.

BTW, the "authoritative" source of employment data is the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can request customized tables and get the results directly from their database. I looked at seasonally adjusted, non-farm total employment and total government employment. You can also customize the time period of data reported for any period since 1939. The link is shown in my prior post.


Of course there is this little tid bit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6955IX20101007






RK

Gerry Clinchy
10-08-2010, 07:56 PM
Approximately 3.25 million jobs have been lost since Obama became President. Total employment peaked at about 138 milion jobs in December 2007. 6.4 million jobs were then lost over the next 13 months of Bush's presidency. Almost 4 million jobs were lost over the balance of 2009, and the total number of jobs has grown over 500,000 since then. Government jobs dropped 100,000 in the first 11 months of the Obama Presidency and have dropped another 250,000 jobs during 2009. The rate of job loss began declining as soon as the stimulus program was adopted in March 2009. but job growth did not begin until the beginning of 2010. Private sector jobs have grown consistently since then with a net loss of government jobs, despite the temporary addition of 500,000 census workers.

I'm confused ... if employment peaked in Dec. 2007 at 138,000,000 jobs, that is a bit over a third of the total population working. Seems fair to presume that at least 1/3 of our population would be children below working age. If unemployment in Dec. 2007 was 5% (which is considered "normal", I believe), that means that 95% of those wanting to work were employed (138,000,000) ... meaning the total workforce "available" would be 145,263,000. So, in Dec. 2007 there were 7,263,000 unemployed.

You mention that an additional 10.4 million jobs were lost thru the end of 2009, and .5 million regained since then ... net loss of 9.9 million jobs ... based on those figures the present rate of unemployment should be more than 10% (remember 7.2 million represented 5% unemployed)

If the published rate of unemployment is 8.6% ... then our workforce has grown? or people have stopped looking for work?

If the rate of job loss started declining as soon as the stimulus bill was adopted in March 2009, that doesn't exactly make sense either. The stimulus couldn't "kick in" as soon as O signed the bill. So, does that mean that jobs were "recovering" even before the stimulus $ started to flow?

A small local township received $500,000 to make their municipal building(s) more energy efficient. Once that project is done, those jobs are also gone. The township will save some money on heating & cooling (and maybe lighting) ... but did anyone look at the amount of payback based on the $ expended? If the township saves $5000/year, it will take 100 years for that project to break even. At $10,000/year, it will still take 50 years to break even.

Point being, was this stimulus $ used wisely. I recall someone mentioning building rail service between point A & point B ... except it made no sense to put rail service on that route. Still believing that our best use of rail service would be for cargo.

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 08:31 PM
Gerry,

I didn't quote anything because of length, but will try to address your points. Employment data attempts to measure directly the actual number of people working (there are separate reports addressing the number so hours being worked, which are also important). Unemployment rates measure the number of people who are unemployed and actively seeking employment. During major downturns, many people give up on looking for jobs. They may open their own "businesses" to do freelance work, they may go back to school, or they may simply drop out of the job market (e.g. become a full time parent). While those people are still largely unemployed, they are no longer counted. When things begin to turn around, many of these people will reenter the job market, making unemployment go up even as total employment increases. When there is a boom and very low unemployment, even more will reenter the job market, creating odd fluctuations. This makes unemployment rates a bit tricky as indicators of economic change.

The stimulus program was adopted in March and began to have almost an instantaneous impact. The first part was a major tax cut that went almost unnoticed because it was embedded in weekly paychecks in such small amounts that virtually every dime went to new consumption. Treasury was able to make this happen in only a few weeks. This was a political disaster when compared with the programs that sent people $300 checks. However, it was economically brilliant. Almost none of those $300 checks went to consumption; they went to pay down debt which does nothing for stimulus. The tax cut put tens of billions into circulation over a period of a few months, with the first impact in April.

The other immediate action was to reduce the cost of COBRA for unemployed persons and to offer extended unemployment benefits for people whose benefits were expiring. These also took effect during the spring. Over a period of the first few months, there were also grants to states -- primarily in the form of decreased state contributions to Medicaid -- that saved many state jobs. The net impact of all of these actions was a major stimulus in record time. While the impact was largely invisible politically, those actions were credited by most economists with a 2-3% increase in GDP beginning in the second calendar quarter. Construction projects, by contrast, did not begin having a real effect until a year later and that effect is only dying down now as the construction season comes to a close.

One of the reasons we will begin to see some contraction economically is that the stimulus program has almost ended and the funds flow has already declined. The administration would like to add to it given sluggish growth, and there are good arguments in favor of such a policy. Personally, on balance, I do not think those actions are worth the additional deficit.

In fact, I believe that, regardless of the outcome of the election, we will begin to see more sustained growth over the next year, but that job growth will remain anemic despite healthy GDP growth and stock market gains. The problem is that our corporate investment will continue to go out of the country where labor costs are lower and growth in consumer spending is stronger.

The starvation of the American consumer market will continue to depress our economy until there are fundamental changes that reduce the cost of hiring American workers and reduce the tax incentives for American businesses in moving jobs out of the country. There are three avenues for doing this: reduce employer contributions for employee health care, reduce employer contributions for employee pensions (primarily social security), and reduce corporate taxes. Each of these actions increases the deficit. I believe some significant changes are needed here even if it requires a mix of new taxes and major spending cuts to contain the deficit impact.

david gibson
10-08-2010, 09:13 PM
yardley - if you are so smart, why arent you running for president? or at least the school board?

no matter what anyone says negative about the current administration, you are quick to spin it to a positive. if your spin it so positive, why isnt it working? and why so verbose? i bet no one ever reads your pompous posts to their entirety. and why is the obama admin not spinning as well as you? you seem to have all the answers, so either you are a wasted resource and the true messiah lost in the quagmire - or you are just a blowhard. a mensa candidate that is lost in the minions.....so sad. i see you as dwight schmoot, trying soooo hard to be --- --- relevant.......................................... .................................................. .................................................. ..............................

i really dont get it. i train all day and come back and you are still posting. its not dead of winter, its not dog days of summer - its prime training time for us all! yet here you are researching and posting posts that wax so eloquently to the issue at hand......
and who really cares? not me! i have been training and have a test this weekend......thats all i care about now

go ahead - tell us about how the dnp relates to the average era of the al vs the relative relationship of the al era vs the afc qb rating. i am sure you have it allllll figured out.... ;-)


have at it - i am playing with dogs all weekend.... ;-)

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 09:54 PM
yardley - if you are so smart, why arent you running for president? or at least the school board?

no matter what anyone says negative about the current administration, you are quick to spin it to a positive. if your spin it so positive, why isnt it working? and why so verbose? i bet no one ever reads your pompous posts to their entirety. and why is the obama admin not spinning as well as you? you seem to have all the answers, so either you are a wasted resource and the true messiah lost in the quagmire - or you are just a blowhard. a mensa candidate that is lost in the minions.....so sad. i see you as dwight schmoot, trying soooo hard to be --- --- relevant.......................................... .................................................. .................................................. ..............................

i really dont get it. i train all day and come back and you are still posting. its not dead of winter, its not dog days of summer - its prime training time for us all! yet here you are researching and posting posts that wax so eloquently to the issue at hand......
and who really cares? not me! i have been training and have a test this weekend......thats all i care about now

go ahead - tell us about how the dnp relates to the average era of the al vs the relative relationship of the al era vs the afc qb rating. i am sure you have it allllll figured out.... ;-)


have at it - i am playing with dogs all weekend.... ;-)
I did my period in politics and am not looking to do it again. I was scheduled to be photographing a trial today, but decided that I needed to stay close since I have a dog that should deliver anytime between now and Monday who will probably need a c-section. Sorry if my posts bother you. I don't think the Obama administration would be at all happy with my suggestions since they run counter to what they are trying to do.

david gibson
10-08-2010, 10:31 PM
I did my period in politics and am not looking to do it again. I was scheduled to be photographing a trial today, but decided that I needed to stay close since I have a dog that should deliver anytime between now and Monday who will probably need a c-section. Sorry if my posts bother you. I don't think the Obama administration would be at all happy with my suggestions since they run counter to what they are trying to do.

exactly. you are even more left than they are.

what a hero you are...:rolleyes:

JDogger
10-08-2010, 10:54 PM
have at it - i am playing with dogs all weekend.... ;-)

Let's see, You're going to a HT, Jeff is having pups, I'm going to the opener for the northern part of the state. Over on the main forum, folks are bleeding over FT rules and regs, and entry fees and #'S
Seems to me no one here is hurting too bad.

Some of you just like to carp.

"We spin something negative and someone else spins it positive"...Waaaah!

Get ready... your team is on the one-yard line, and when they score, we want to see overnight results. Don't go, "we inherited a mess, don't blame us."
We've already heard that.

What goes around, comes around regards, JD

tom
10-09-2010, 12:24 AM
if your spin it so positive, why isn't it working?

By who's standards isn't it working?

Oh wait, you want Obama to snap his fingers and create a job for everyone in the land.
Sorry ain't gonna' happen! Government has no ability to do that regardless of which party is in power.

Just because the GOP has said that it isn't working 10 million times doesn't make it so.

At least my IRA's are starting to show a little recovery, maybe I'll be able to stay retired after all.


yardley - if you are so smart, why arent you running for president? or at least the school board?

I ran for dog catcher once, does that count? ;-)

As I see it, my responsibility is to become as informed as I can and then VOTE
So you now have less than a month to change my mind! (why did you think I was bothering to post on here?)
http://i396.photobucket.com/albums/pp43/blunderpic/dogs/oppsimissedmyturn.jpg

depittydawg
10-09-2010, 12:42 AM
down 95,000!!

didnt biden say we would be adding 500,000 a month by now?? yeah, lovin that recovery summer!

this proves they have no clue what they are doing. i agree with stuart varney - the dems shot themselves in the foot by not voting on the tax cut extensions. who wants to hire when the future is so uncertain? who wants to have to lay off who you just hired when taxes go up again next january??

idiots idiots idiots

Think about the absurdity of your statement. No tax cuts = no jobs... I assume you're referring to the Bush tax cuts of a decade ago. Those tax cuts have been and still are in effect. How many jobs do you credit them with? Logically, judging by the present and the past performance, those tax cuts have little to no impact on job creation in America. Why would they? You don't hire somebody because you got a tax break. You hire somebody because there is a demand for what they do.

Americans are indeed stupid. I'm sorry to say. The economy has recovered. The job market has not. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that there are other factors impeding the recovery of Jobs in America? Might it be the same factor that has been restricting job growth for the last 10 years and has nothing to do with which party is in control of government?
Put on your pondering shoes folks. You're completely missing the boat on what is and has happened to the US job picture.
Wall Street is doing just fine thank you. Look at the market. They're all making money faster than they can count it. And they're not paying any taxes either. Exxon Mobil and GE paid zero federal income taxes for 2009. Go figure. Business is expanding in just about every sector. So where are all those jobs going? Think hard now. Your future may depend on it.

tom
10-09-2010, 12:53 AM
Think hard now. Your future may depend on it.

Guess we will have to sneek into Mexico so that we can work in a GM plant.

YardleyLabs
10-09-2010, 07:33 AM
exactly. you are even more left than they are.

what a hero you are...:rolleyes:
If you can say that, you clearly didn't read what I wrote. My suggestions are actually more business friendly than anything proposed by Republicans.

depittydawg
10-09-2010, 09:22 AM
yardley - if you are so smart, why arent you running for president? or at least the school board?

no matter what anyone says negative about the current administration, you are quick to spin it to a positive. if your spin it so positive, why isnt it working? and why so verbose? i bet no one ever reads your pompous posts to their entirety. and why is the obama admin not spinning as well as you? you seem to have all the answers, so either you are a wasted resource and the true messiah lost in the quagmire - or you are just a blowhard. a mensa candidate that is lost in the minions.....so sad. i see you as dwight schmoot, trying soooo hard to be --- --- relevant.......................................... .................................................. .................................................. ..............................

i really dont get it. i train all day and come back and you are still posting. its not dead of winter, its not dog days of summer - its prime training time for us all! yet here you are researching and posting posts that wax so eloquently to the issue at hand......
and who really cares? not me! i have been training and have a test this weekend......thats all i care about now

go ahead - tell us about how the dnp relates to the average era of the al vs the relative relationship of the al era vs the afc qb rating. i am sure you have it allllll figured out.... ;-)


have at it - i am playing with dogs all weekend.... ;-)

Well.... I it sounds like you have forwarded the suggestion that to study issues, partake in debate with others, and to consider cause and effect regarding the issues that confront our communities is a waste of time. But for an adult to spend most of his productive time playing with his dog is a noble and worthy achievement.
Now I'm not going to make a judgement on either pass time? I happen to think both are important aspects of a full life. And devoting effort to one does not prevent excelling in the other. However, if either activity becomes the center point in ones life; it's time to reset the priority meter.
BTW, the word is out that your dogs are Progressive David... How did that happen?

david gibson
10-10-2010, 06:55 PM
Well.... I it sounds like you have forwarded the suggestion that to study issues, partake in debate with others, and to consider cause and effect regarding the issues that confront our communities is a waste of time. But for an adult to spend most of his productive time playing with his dog is a noble and worthy achievement. umm, just because that particular day i trained all day doesnt mean i can afford to do it every day.....
Now I'm not going to make a judgement on either pass time? I happen to think both are important aspects of a full life. And devoting effort to one does not prevent excelling in the other. However, if either activity becomes the center point in ones life; it's time to reset the priority meter.
BTW, the word is out that your dogs are Progressive David... How did that happen?


yeah. you got me all figured out, dont you????