Page 20 of 42 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 419

Thread: Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

  1. #191
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    So, how does its implementation 1-3 yrs from now affect businesses today?
    you really have to ask?

    bad planning by Congress, not the Obama Administration.
    he's the head of the party, silly

    what does "demonizing and vilifying the uber rich" have to do with "neglecting African Americans"?
    in the abstract, not much, i spose

    in reality, they are both things done by this woebegone white house

    Moreover, hasn't it been your side of the political divide who continue to make the claim that the President is too Black for his own good and that his policies have alienated the Wall Street elite?
    who knows, who cares

  2. #192
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

    random...

    what was it, again?

    oh, yeah

    random "complaints:"

    housing---no bottom in sight, millions more out there

    property tax revenues---thru the floor

    fannie and fred---up to a HALF TRILLION

    medicaid alone is NOW unsustainable at the state level

    the muni market---buy!

    TWO POINT FIVE TRILLION dollars of unfunded public pensions promised at the state level alone

    TWO POINT SEVEN TRILLION dollars of qe---all UNDIVERSIFED junk

    interest on the debt alone soon to reach ONE TRIL per year

    THREE QUARTERS OF A TRILLION dollars of new taxes in obamacare

    oil and food inflation---frightening

    a HALF TRILLION dollars of pfft reported by the gao just this week

    a president whose budget actually proposes to RAISE the deficit 30%, doesn't even recognize the seismic cracks in our foundation, ignores his own debt commission

    yup, it's random complaints like the above that are just so darned capable of drowning out so much good news

    party on, nonpartisans

  3. #193
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    LOL! You think roads are our only infrastructure do you?
    What I think is you are a troll. You, like all other liberals, are out of touch with reality. For some reason you believe the govt. is the answer when the fact is that answer has created a 14.3 trillion dollar debt and never really solved a problem. I know what infrastructure is and I also know that like with any use tax today the Federal Govt. put that money ON budget and spent it mostly on everything other than the infrastructure. Now your answer is to throw more money at the problem. If you want infrastructure capital, take excise taxes off budget and put them where they belong, into a fund specifically for the infrastructure.

  4. #194
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What I think is you are a troll. You, like all other liberals, are out of touch with reality. For some reason you believe the govt. is the answer when the fact is that answer has created a 14.3 trillion dollar debt and never really solved a problem. I know what infrastructure is and I also know that like with any use tax today the Federal Govt. put that money ON budget and spent it mostly on everything other than the infrastructure. Now your answer is to throw more money at the problem. If you want infrastructure capital, take excise taxes off budget and put them where they belong, into a fund specifically for the infrastructure.
    No. I think the government should cut wasteful spending, now that we are no longer careening towards another great depression, that's why I am opposed to corporate welfare, and an imperialistic sized military, and giving the wealthy trillions of dollars in tax breaks. I have no problems with the money spent on infrastructure.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #195
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No. I think the government should cut wasteful spending, now that we are no longer careening towards another great depression, that's why I am opposed to corporate welfare, and an imperialistic sized military, and giving the wealthy trillions of dollars in tax breaks. I have no problems with the money spent on infrastructure.
    Why don't you ever back up your claims with data? Trillions of dollars in tax breaks? Prove it? I want to see the data from now on for your claims and I offer proof of mine from the non partisan Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics. What exactly is corporate welfare? What do corporations do with their profits? So many questions yet your rants never answer them.

  6. #196
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,358

    Re: Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No. I think the government should cut wasteful spending, now that we are no longer careening towards another great depression, that's why I am opposed to corporate welfare, and an imperialistic sized military, and giving the wealthy trillions of dollars in tax breaks. I have no problems with the money spent on infrastructure.
    Do you or anyone really believe the stuff in the post above? I hope you are not in favor of intervening in Libya while talking of our imperialistic military. Not sure what statistics you are looking at when saying that the wealthy get trillions of dollars of tax breaks. Perhaps you can start by your definition of what is wealthy?

    It would also be helpful if you could show us how you helped create a single job in America.

    Is this really the best level of political debate we can hope for?

  7. #197
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    You know I can agree with much of what you are saying there. One of the reasons the banks are doing so well however, is the pure fact that they can borrow money from the fed at 0% interest, buy bonds, get 2 to 2.5% return, collect that and pay the fed back. It's a lock with no risk. If you want to get them loaning money again, don't let them borrow at 0%, Make them have to start loaning money to make their profits.

    In my opinion the reason is two fold that business's aren't doing anything, first is the banks that aren't lending, and 2nd are the policies being put in place. One has been taken care of (for the time being) with the extension of the tax cuts, and since that happened, you have seen some improvement in the private sector.
    I agreed with you until you returned to the same flawed excuse every other Conservative has been using for some time...

    Next is the new health care law, (not saying anything about being good or bad) it's tied up in the courts, and is going to be bounced around in the houses, businesses don't know if they should be preparing for the future costs of it or not. Heck there have been over 700 waivers for one part of this health care bill, what about those companies that can't afford to get lawyers to apply and get a wavier? So until all this is settled no company knows what they are going to have to do with their health care for employees.
    ...the same lie I just finished disproving concerning the relationship between businesses and the PPAC which once against HAS NOT come into full effect where the private business sector is concerned. Here's the truth of the matter:

    As health costs soar, GOP and insurers differ on cause

    Workers at a circuit-board factory here just saw their health insurance premiums rise 20 percent. At Buddy Zaremba’s print shop nearby, the increase was 37 percent. And for engineers at the Woodland Design Group, they rose 43 percent.

    The new federal health care law may eventually “bend the cost curve” downward, as proponents argue. But for now, at many workplaces here, the rising cost of health care is prompting insurance premiums to skyrocket while coverage is shrinking.

    ....

    Economists and state regulators say health insurance is expensive primarily because health care is expensive.

    “You won’t really address the cost of health insurance unless you address the cost of health care itself,” New Hampshire’s insurance commissioner, Roger A. Sevigny, said.

    In a letter explaining Mr. La Tourette’s new rate, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield said it resulted, in part, from “an increase in medical trends, especially the utilization of services and the underlying cost of health care, for all small-group customers.”

    ...


    Some insurance industry lobbyists say the new federal health care law is driving up premiums. But Vincent Capozzi, senior vice president for sales and customer service at Harvard Pilgrim, said that only one percentage point of the increases here was attributable to the federal law, mainly its requirement for free coverage of preventive services.

    Another percentage point results from new state laws requiring coverage of hearing aids and certain treatments for autism, Mr. Capozzi said. Most of the remainder, he said, reflects increases in the use and cost of medical care by small-group customers, with adjustments for demographic characteristics like age.

    In many cases, insurance coverage is shrinking as deductibles are increasing and choices of hospitals are more limited. Robert I. Woodland, the president of the Woodland Design Group, said his company had experienced double-digit increases in premiums for seven years, even as benefits were whittled back. Most recently, he was notified that the rates were being increased 43 percent, so the monthly premium for a single worker would be $550, up from $384.

    “Essentially, we have been paying a lot more for a lot less,” Mr. Woodland said. “It’s outrageous. I cannot imagine charging my clients 43 percent more in a single year.”
    Barely a mention of ObamaCare or any other new federal policy or mandate, but even when the PPAC is referenced, its effect is placed in its proper context where rising premium costs are concerned. Bottom line here is it's just "business as usual", the markets doing what the markets do. And in this case, it's the same fluxuations in medical treatments, procedures and services that are the root causes to insurance premium increases, not the PPAC itself.

    Now, if you wish to argue that because the door has been opened to allow people with pre-existing conditions to now be covered or that young adults between the ages of 21-26 are now allowed to remain on their parent's insurance plans, I'd probably give some leeway except as I've reviewed these patient inclusions within the health care system these such individuals are NOT getting a free-ride; they have to pay insurance premiums like everyone else, i.e., child-care policies. Therefore, the argument that the PPAC is the root cause for rising health care cost is a total falsehood!

    Then you have the overall economy, despite some small gains being made, I don't think anyone is really to sure that we have turned the corner yet. Housing that was supposed to have bottomed, now looks like that might not be so. Inflation is beginning, much of it due to gas prices, and those are not going to stabilize any time soon. I guess what I'm saying is put yourself in place of a businessman, would you be confident of investing yet ?
    If the "businessman" is "investing" in growing his business, I'd say he/she would have to study the market that affects his business industry. A jewler, for example, might be making money right now IF he's buying or selling gold pieces. Realtors, on the other hand, may still be questioning the housing markets, but as the economy recovers realtors will start buying property for resell. Have you noticed the volumn of home loan and foreclosure advertisements being run lately? With so many homes available right now, it's a buyer's market. Realtors know this quite well. In time, the housing market will improve just as the stock market (DOW) did from its 9,000 point low. People will always need a place to stay whether they buy or rent or "lease to own". It's just a matter of time before the market stablizes, but if you're paying attention to what's happening in the housing market you know that time is coming sooner rather than later.

  8. #198
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,257

    Re: Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    In time, the housing market will improve just as the stock market (DOW) did from its 9,000 point low. People will always need a place to stay whether they buy or rent or "lease to own". It's just a matter of time before the market stablizes, but if you're paying attention to what's happening in the housing market you know that time is coming sooner rather than later.
    FWIW, on March 9, 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a 12 year low at 6,547.05. It has since then increased by 86% to 12,169.88. Stock prices were not unbelievably over valued, instead it was real estate. It will take a few more years to see even a modest recovery, much less 86%
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #199
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Why don't you ever back up your claims with data? Trillions of dollars in tax breaks? Prove it? I want to see the data from now on for your claims and I offer proof of mine from the non partisan Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics. What exactly is corporate welfare? What do corporations do with their profits? So many questions yet your rants never answer them.
    "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 beyond their 2010 expiration would increase deficits by $1.8 trillion dollars over the following decade.[44] The CBO also completed a study in 2005 analyzing a hypothetical 10% income tax cut and concluded that under various scenarios there would be minimal offsets to the loss of revenue. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter."
    Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Many early proponents argued that the size of the economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster growing economy would be sufficient to compensate completely for the short-term costs of a tax cut, and that tax cuts could, in fact, cause overall revenue to increase.[1] Some hold this was borne out during the 1980s when, advocates of supply-side economics claim, tax cuts ultimately led to an overall increase in governmental revenue due to stronger economic growth. Other economists, however, dispute this assertion.[18][19] Some contemporary economists do not consider supply-side economics a tenable economic theory, with Alan Blinder calling it an "ill-fated" and perhaps "silly" school on the pages of a 2006 textbook.[20] Greg Mankiw, former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, offered similarly sharp criticism of the school in the early editions of his introductory economics textbook.[21] In a 1992 article for the Harvard International Review, James Tobin wrote, "[The] idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule…"[22] While few modern economists claim that tax cuts will completely pay for themselves, some empirical and theoretical research suggests that tax cuts do help to pay for themselves through increased economic growth, though the end result, even conservative economists contend, will be a significant reduction in revenues.[6] The Reagan administration was the first to implement supply-side policies and call them that. Some maintain that they failed to deliver the promised benefits.[23]

    "The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.
    - Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.[23]”


    Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #200
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,270

    Re: Unemployment dips to 8.9 pct., 192K jobs added

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    "The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that extending the Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003 beyond their 2010 expiration would increase deficits by $1.8 trillion dollars over the following decade.[44] The CBO also completed a study in 2005 analyzing a hypothetical 10% income tax cut and concluded that under various scenarios there would be minimal offsets to the loss of revenue. In other words, deficits would increase by nearly the same amount as the tax cut in the first five years, with limited feedback revenue thereafter."
    Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Many early proponents argued that the size of the economic growth would be significant enough that the increased government revenue from a faster growing economy would be sufficient to compensate completely for the short-term costs of a tax cut, and that tax cuts could, in fact, cause overall revenue to increase.[1] Some hold this was borne out during the 1980s when, advocates of supply-side economics claim, tax cuts ultimately led to an overall increase in governmental revenue due to stronger economic growth. Other economists, however, dispute this assertion.[18][19] Some contemporary economists do not consider supply-side economics a tenable economic theory, with Alan Blinder calling it an "ill-fated" and perhaps "silly" school on the pages of a 2006 textbook.[20] Greg Mankiw, former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, offered similarly sharp criticism of the school in the early editions of his introductory economics textbook.[21] In a 1992 article for the Harvard International Review, James Tobin wrote, "[The] idea that tax cuts would actually increase revenues turned out to deserve the ridicule…"[22] While few modern economists claim that tax cuts will completely pay for themselves, some empirical and theoretical research suggests that tax cuts do help to pay for themselves through increased economic growth, though the end result, even conservative economists contend, will be a significant reduction in revenues.[6] The Reagan administration was the first to implement supply-side policies and call them that. Some maintain that they failed to deliver the promised benefits.[23]

    "The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts.
    - Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007), p. 695.[23]”


    Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Don't you just love CBO projections? Never right but often quoted. Interesting that the CBO scored the entire TAX cut program not just the tax on those evil rich people. You have to do better than this but like all other leftists keeping more of what one earns is always an expense to the govt. That is except of course the money you get to keep, right? Did you ever think that just maybe people keeping more of what they earn might just mean they need less of that 3.7 TRILLION Dollar govt?

    All this hatred over people keeping more of what they earn! Says a lot about liberalism and liberals who cannot accept failure of their beloved agenda.
    Last edited by Conservative; 03-05-11 at 02:53 PM.

Page 20 of 42 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •