Typical of this administration, 288k new jobs in June

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Seriously Joey 2009-2010? Please tell us how the downside momentum of a near economic collapse can be stopped on a dime and turned around. A Noble Prize in Economics awaits you if you do.

Didn't say that it could be stopped that soon, but it also didn't even decelerate. If Obama is to get some time to turn it around, then so would any president, and people were all over Reagan when it took some time to reverse Carter's mess.

Regardless, even if I choose to concede the point, it is now 2014. It is not a "typical" state of affairs for this administration to have job growth. Quite the opposite.

And counting up part-time jobs that people need to have more than one of, and they still can't make up for the lost full-time salary of their last job, doesn't seem like something to celebrate.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Didn't say that it could be stopped that soon, but it also didn't even decelerate. If Obama is to get some time to turn it around, then so would any president, and people were all over Reagan when it took some time to reverse Carter's mess.

Regardless, even if I choose to concede the point, it is now 2014. It is not a "typical" state of affairs for this administration to have job growth. Quite the opposite.

And counting up part-time jobs that people need to have more than one of, and they still can't make up for the lost full-time salary of their last job, doesn't seem like something to celebrate.

So you bang the table for capitalism on behalf of the Pro-Business party and then blame the other side when jobs get shipped to China and India and H1B's continue unabated. Well played Sir, well played. My feelings are that this administration has done NOTHING to stem the tide of business destroying the economic foundation of the country but the alternative I'm afraid would have accelerated the slide towards the bottom. Heads we lose Tails we lose faster.

One thing this administration is great at is knowing the media and playing the headline game. Don't like the statistics then change how they are calculated.

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/07/man...l-you-make-it/

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Didn't say that it could be stopped that soon, but it also didn't even decelerate. If Obama is to get some time to turn it around, then so would any president, and people were all over Reagan when it took some time to reverse Carter's mess.

It wasn't Carter's mess. The economic problems predated his Administration. Remember Ford's WIN buttons? Or him declaring inflation public enemy number one in 1974? (Okay, I don't either because I was too young- my first political memory is a Ford-Carter debate, but he did.)

From, of all things, a poster on Yahoo ("Mr Smartypants" is his nom de plume, I believe), but he's right, so here:

"The Republicans succeeded in blaming it on Carter in the public's consciousness simply by repeating over and over that it was all Carter's fault, until the media picked it up and began repeating it for them.

Reagan 'fixed' the economy by tripling the entire pre-existing national debt. Anyone can live high off the hog for a while if they don't mind going into serious debt. Well into his second term, Reagan was still cheerfully predicting that revenue boosts from his tax cuts would pay for the debt. There was a modest increase in revenue but it didn't even pay the interest on the new debt."

That's what makes me nuts about GOP in the White House- they scream "fiscal conservatism!" right up until the moment they're in the WH, then it's all "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" to quote the former VP and they spend without end on giveaways to their connections (Iraq, Medicare Part D, etc.) Rinse, repeat. The only one who actually was a big boy and raised taxes because it needed to be done was George HW Bush and see how that worked out for his reelection.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It wasn't Carter's mess. The economic problems predated his Administration. Remember Ford's WIN buttons? Or him declaring inflation public enemy number one in 1974? (Okay, I don't either because I was too young- my first political memory is a Ford-Carter debate, but he did.)

From, of all things, a poster on Yahoo ("Mr Smartypants" is his nom de plume, I believe), but he's right, so here:

"The Republicans succeeded in blaming it on Carter in the public's consciousness simply by repeating over and over that it was all Carter's fault, until the media picked it up and began repeating it for them.

Reagan 'fixed' the economy by tripling the entire pre-existing national debt. Anyone can live high off the hog for a while if they don't mind going into serious debt. Well into his second term, Reagan was still cheerfully predicting that revenue boosts from his tax cuts would pay for the debt. There was a modest increase in revenue but it didn't even pay the interest on the new debt."

That's what makes me nuts about GOP in the White House- they scream "fiscal conservatism!" right up until the moment they're in the WH, then it's all "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" to quote the former VP and they spend without end on giveaways to their connections (Iraq, Medicare Part D, etc.) Rinse, repeat. The only one who actually was a big boy and raised taxes because it needed to be done was George HW Bush and see how that worked out for his reelection.

I think we are reaping what was down with 'trickle down economics'. The middle and lower classes are barely even getting a trickle any more. More like a droplet or two every now and then.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I think we are reaping what was down with 'trickle down economics'. The middle and lower classes are barely even getting a trickle any more. More like a droplet or two every now and then.

Yet in this country the poorest of the poor have subsidized, housing, food, water, heat, air-conditioning, schooling, healthcare (including birth control) cell phone and in some instances even WI-FI and cable TV ALL paid for by the taxpayer.

There is plenty of trickling down going on and most is getting flushed down a subsidized toilet.

'Strike the violins'

[OldDog]

"What is Poverty in the United States Today?"

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...hat-is-poverty

And free weed.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local...265632571.html

[Danzig]

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/oba...rterly-update/

I googled net jobs Obama administration.

Its from a year ago, but I didn't see anything newer.

Now, although more jobs than under last pres, more are on food stamps, I would think due to underemployment. And pay hasn't kept up either.

We celebrate capitalism, our products tion is incredibly high...with less pay and more automation. It used to be when demand was high, companies added jobs, now they just add more and faster machines.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/oba...rterly-update/

I googled net jobs Obama administration.

Its from a year ago, but I didn't see anything newer.

Now, although more jobs than under last pres, more are on food stamps, I would think due to underemployment. And pay hasn't kept up either.

We celebrate capitalism, our products tion is incredibly high...with less pay and more automation. It used to be when demand was high, companies added jobs, now they just add more and faster machines.

Or ship jobs overseas or import cheap labor. The outcome is inevitable when no one is left that can afford to buy your stuff... Is this not clear as day?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Reagan 'fixed' the economy by tripling the entire pre-existing national debt. Anyone can live high off the hog for a while if they don't mind going into serious debt. Well into his second term, Reagan was still cheerfully predicting that revenue boosts from his tax cuts would pay for the debt. There was a modest increase in revenue but it didn't even pay the interest on the new debt."

That's actually not quite true. Reagan did cut the income tax rates, but the revenue collected actually tripled by 1989. So there was more money coming in.

However, the government (Reagan AND the Democratically held Congress) outspent the new higher revenue level, resulting in higher yearly deficits and accumulated national debt.

They are two separate things, and the conclusion would be easier if the revenue went down by slashing tax rates, but that's not what happened. More money left tax sheltering for investments, creating jobs (here then as opposed to abroad) and boosting the economy. But we did try to win the Cold War so military spending went up, social spending has never gone down. It all adds up.

It was a net negative but not due to loss of revenue - the spending exceeded the increased revenue resulting in a shortfall. Like most years except 1969 under Nixon and that is not a good thing.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by mclem0822

Astounding! I think you could do a poll of Roger Ailes, and Rupert fuking Murdock and they would tell you FOX is NOWHERE near fair, balanced, and certainly ACCURACY! Need i remind you sir the original name for the network was GOP TV for god's sake! Look it up you don't believe me! The GOP rolls out the talking points and this group of paid liars run with them, do they get ratings YES, does that make them in any way a legit news source HELL NO!

Fox News was never called GOP TV. Don't believe everything you read from left-wing blogs without fact-checking it. Where did you read that?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Or ship jobs overseas or import cheap labor. The outcome is inevitable when no one is left that can afford to buy your stuff... Is this not clear as day?

Do you think there would be any way to incentivize corporations to build their factories here instead of overseas or to even close their factories overseas and re-open them here? If so, would you be in favor of trying to do that?

Even if the government had to give these companies huge tax breaks, it still may be worth it to the government's bottom line. With all the extra jobs that would be created here, there would be more people paying taxes and less people needing government benefits.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you think there would be any way to incentivize corporations to build their factories here instead of overseas or to even close their factories overseas and re-open them here? If so, would you be in favor of trying to do that?

Even if the government had to give these companies huge tax breaks, it still may be worth it to the government's bottom line. With all the extra jobs that would be created here, there would be more people paying taxes and less people needing government benefits.

What in the last 25 years gives you an iota of evidence that given more money corporations will use it for anything other than lining the pockets of execs? Seriously Rupe your ideology is from a time long past or you are willfully ignorant of the current state of events. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is the former.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

What in the last 25 years gives you an iota of evidence that given more money corporations will use it for anything other than lining the pockets of execs? Seriously Rupe your ideology is from a time long past or you are willfully ignorant of the current state of events. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is the former.

You misunderstood my question. I agree with you that most corporations are about the bottom line and maximizing profits. Right now it is more profitable for them to have their factories overseas. My question is whether there could be anything done that would make it more profitable for them to keep their companies here. When I mentioned a tax break, I meant that it would only be under the condition that the company have their factory here, and not overseas.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You misunderstood my question. I agree with you that most corporations are about the bottom line and maximizing profits. Right now it is more profitable for them to have their factories overseas. My question is whether there could be anything done that would make it more profitable for them to keep their companies here. When I mentioned a tax break, I meant that it would only be under the condition that the company have their factory here, and not overseas.

I suppose if we completely eliminate the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, allow unlimited H1B's, eliminate the FDA and EPA, eliminate welfare benefits and allow people to sell their children into slavery we can be competitive with China and India. In short I would trust a meth addicted degenerate gambler at Hawthorne to pay me back the 100 bucks he is asking for than corporate America to do what is right for the future of the country with any bribe money given them.

[geeker2]

Looks like the sky may not be falling after all.....eventually it all about economics and certainty.

http://worldtonyc.com/us-manufacturing-making-comeback/

[jms62]

Originally Posted by geeker2

Looks like the sky may not be falling after all.....eventually it all about economics and certainty.

http://worldtonyc.com/us-manufacturing-making-comeback/

Awesome!!! I'm glad W2NYC is on the case and telling it like it is while the associated press is totally dropping the ball

http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/b...n-worker-visas



The sky is not falling Geeker, it already fell and crushed the middle class. Can I ask if you are retired/semi retired and collecting a pension? Most folks in that age group see no problems at all cause they are still getting their pensions... For now that is. As far as "It's all about economics", the economics books have yet to be written on the long range detrimental effects of shipping buying power to the 3rd world.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you think there would be any way to incentivize corporations to build their factories here instead of overseas or to even close their factories overseas and re-open them here? If so, would you be in favor of trying to do that?

Even if the government had to give these companies huge tax breaks, it still may be worth it to the government's bottom line. With all the extra jobs that would be created here, there would be more people paying taxes and less people needing government benefits.

Hahahahaha

No corporation is doing jack-sh1t in "the best interest of the communities they serve" if it doesn't pad their bottom line. Wake the fuc1< up.

Subsidizing corporations through massive tax breaks is the only way the ones that are still here stay here. And most all of those are national, not international corporations, as international corporations are required to pay taxes on revenues earned outside of the country.

Again, corporate tax rates are huge, relative to the rest of the modernized world, but the massive incentives they receive typically offset those rates.

Case in point - Walgreens being urged to move to Switzerland, by shareholders, to sidestep paying taxes on revenue raised outside US borders:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ate-tax-burden

The great news is, that for all of these corporations fleeing the country, there are no laws in place to keep them from forming PAC's and thus influencing our lawmakers. So they can willfully leave our country, continue to do business within our borders, and pay to play just like they were still here. Only heaping more of the tax burden onto small business and what is left of the middle class.

It's like beating your head into the wall. Another thread replete with 3 pages of Red vs. Blue hur hur hur and not one scintilla of outrage at how you are continuing to get screwed by both of them equally.


Wake up.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You misunderstood my question. I agree with you that most corporations are about the bottom line and maximizing profits. Right now it is more profitable for them to have their factories overseas. My question is whether there could be anything done that would make it more profitable for them to keep their companies here. When I mentioned a tax break, I meant that it would only be under the condition that the company have their factory here, and not overseas.

we still are the number one manufacturing country, but too much has gone to automation.
the paper mill still runs lights out here in this town, with a fraction of its former workforce.
they even have robot fork trucks to go with the robot trailers that move product around...along with robots that package, box, palletize, etc, etc.

we have corporations who love capitalism, and people who support rampant capitalism, and all it's done is made a lot of people obsolete. and then we blame the people for not working-when in fact there's no jobs for them. because they're either done by machine now, or gone overseas. and the top tier of the companies make loads more than ever before, while what workers remain get paid squat.

[joeydb]

Wait until the hamburger-flipping robot comes out. Unemployment will really spike.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Wait until the hamburger-flipping robot comes out. Unemployment will really spike.

funny, but sad, because it's getting to that.