Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Say the Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not just the insane spending, it's the tryannical overreach of the Federal Government.

Yes, that too. They go together, of course ...

UidiotRacesMAkeWorldPeace wrote:

So how long with it take for employment to return to pre-recession levels?

How long will it take?

Depends on when you start making changes that will promote growth.

Hopefully, that start will be made with a new administration, pro-growth policy agenda, and competent leadership in the White House in January 2013.

So now we have jobless claims up, foreclosures up, and because obama and the democratic party spent so much money on payoffs to their supporters without any benefit to the economy, and because they spent a year on obamacare, which is another disaster, we are now in worse shape then we would have been if they had done nothing.

basically this says it all

"President Obama certainly has an estranged relationship with his cabinet, preferring to govern mostly out of the White House. But according to White House Visitor Logs, John Bryson actually visited more often than many of his colleagues–a total of 31 times (barring multiple John Brysons). Energy Secretary Steven Chu had visited 17 times and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has only swung by 13 times. To put that in context, Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen has visited the White House 33 times and union boss Richard Trumka has visited 69 times."

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/12/the-bizar...

Obama spends far more time on politics and campaigning then he does in trying to fix this country's problems, and as a result things are not getting better. He can bob and weave to his friends at fundraisers and the corrupt media, but the truth is that this president had done tremendous damage to our country.

The media needs to stop their propaganda campaign and start telling us the truth, because if Obama is reelected things will get much worse.

385,000 newly unemployed announced today, how long before we reach the 400K mark. In May we added 500K+ new college graduates to those seeking jobs yet the rate only went up .1%, fuzzy math by the Obamatrons at the BLS again.

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
How long will it take?
Depends on when you start making changes that will promote growth.
Hopefully, that start will be made with a new administration, pro-growth policy agenda, and competent leadership in the White House in January 2013.

IMO, if a credible plan is enacted which stabilizes the budget (I endorse a mix of tax increases, entitlement reform, modernizing public workers compensation packages, ending Obama's Afghanistan war) and stabilizes our national debt, the markets (and the private sector) will take off.

Unfortunately, the Kenyan Stooge, has no such plan. Its just throwing more money at his voters and hoping that the recession ends in which case Axelrod will have his Stooge read a speech taking credit. For a year The Stooge talked up Simpson Bowles.

I thought it was a good plan, a good compromise which left both sides somewhat unhappy, but the Stooge promptly ignored it (no doubt due to objections from his union monkey supporters).

It is now two years since Joey the Drunkard proclaimed "Recovery Summer." Now we are back to blaming Bush. Pathetic.

Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:

<quoted text>
Newsflash - public employees are paid with tax dollars.
I can always choose not to buy a product made in the private sector.
Plus, the private sector long ago realized that these 1950s style pension packages would bankrupt them (with few exceptions, mostly utilities) and jettisoned them.
Also, tens of thousands of "financiers" as you call them have lost their jobs since 2008.

Of course Pflug, everyone knows you can choose to have the water and electricity and sewage cut off at your house and have your house condemned. And it is actually easier to do that than it is not to use the services of certain banks and financial institutions because their tenticles are everywhere to include in your water, electricity and sewage service providers.

Second, every dollar kept by the CEO of a financial term is another dollar that is not being loaned out or hiring someone to work.

So you when are you going to start your boycot? Let us know will you?

And no, 10's of thousands of workers in the finance industry (tellers, clerks, low level account managers, etc... have lost their jobs. The financiers themselves have faired fairly well.....to inlcude pay raises and bonuses.

Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:

<quoted text>
Beyond stupid. Not for profit 501(c)3 corporations BY DEFINITION are exempt from federal income taxes, and usually from state sales and income taxes too, though some not-for profit hospitals and colleges have entered into PILOT agreements with states and localities.

Go back and read the post. A 10% tax on GROSS eliminates the non-profit exemption. You are almost as ignorant as Teddy when it comes to finance.

Justimfication: Corporations are people. We need only one set of tax laws.

joe wrote:

Rupert Murdoch pressured me over Europe, says John Major.
Ex-PM tells Leveson inquiry that mogul said in 1997 his papers would oppose the government if it did not change its policy.
Just another little item in the "fair and balanced" world of right wing journalism and politics.

Corporations are people, they have a right to fight for their existence and the things they want. It is my understanding that the Florida "Stand Your Ground" policy is being ammended so that a corporation can kill anyone that attempts to put the corporate at risk through lawsuits and other measures.

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Go back and read the post. A 10% tax on GROSS eliminates the non-profit exemption. You are almost as ignorant as Teddy when it comes to finance.
Justimfication: Corporations are people. We need only one set of tax laws.

Enlighten me. Post a reference to this 10% tax on gross which eliminates the non-profit exemption.

Having worked on hundreds of bond financings for tax exempt entities such as many hospitals, universities, museums, charitable foundations, I have never heard of this.

Give the reference. If I am wrong, I will admit it right here.

Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:

Did anyone watch Jamie Dimon testify in Congress today?
Most of the Senators are utterly clueless about the banking business. Almost as clueless as Obama.

Since Dimon admitted his own traders and their supervisors to include the CIO he fired had no idea what they were doing what do you expect from people that make much less, which includes the President? The "Whale" trader making millions while the President makes less than a mil and you expect.......? What?

I also saw where Dimon said the buck stops with him. But then he did not get fired and he did not talk about JPM clawing back his pay now did he?

He also said that more and better regulation could have saved him and his shareholders a bunch of money.

After crying over increased capital requirements last year, he said they made his bank strong enough to lose the $2 bil this year.

What did I miss?

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Corporations are people, they have a right to fight for their existence and the things they want. It is my understanding that the Florida "Stand Your Ground" policy is being ammended so that a corporation can kill anyone that attempts to put the corporate at risk through lawsuits and other measures.

Corporations are considered to be "people" in the laws of the land, which you know little about.

Your little colloquialism shows why you like Obama so much, who dumbs things down with his silly little analogies.

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course Pflug, everyone knows you can choose to have the water and electricity and sewage cut off at your house and have your house condemned. And it is actually easier to do that than it is not to use the services of certain banks and financial institutions because their tenticles are everywhere to include in your water, electricity and sewage service providers.
Second, every dollar kept by the CEO of a financial term is another dollar that is not being loaned out or hiring someone to work.
So you when are you going to start your boycot? Let us know will you?
And no, 10's of thousands of workers in the finance industry (tellers, clerks, low level account managers, etc... have lost their jobs. The financiers themselves have faired fairly well.....to inlcude pay raises and bonuses.

Speechless.... wow.

Anyway, here's a simple little example of a not for profit which pays some taxes on non-exempt actitivies (which IRS code defines):

A private college's bookstore. Of course you are expert in this, whereas in my field we relied on bond counsel to opine on tax exempt status. So, enlighten me, for the benefit of those reading this board....

Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:

Did anyone watch Jamie Dimon testify in Congress today?
Most of the Senators are utterly clueless about the banking business. Almost as clueless as Obama.

Now that I got my shots in, how about this:

Take all the financial regulatory agencies with the exception of the consumer protection part, and combine them under one agency.

Inside that agency they could have offices that are separated by function. But add in a central operations office that coordinates oversight and investigation kind of like we now share intel between agencies.

Make the finance industry pay for the oversight themselves through a surcharge on transactions. A lot of inspections are paid for in this manner such as fruits and vegetables. The packing houses have to pay for the inspectors.

okboston wrote:

<quoted text>
Since Dimon admitted his own traders and their supervisors to include the CIO he fired had no idea what they were doing what do you expect from people that make much less, which includes the President? The "Whale" trader making millions while the President makes less than a mil and you expect.......? What?
I also saw where Dimon said the buck stops with him. But then he did not get fired and he did not talk about JPM clawing back his pay now did he?
He also said that more and better regulation could have saved him and his shareholders a bunch of money.
After crying over increased capital requirements last year, he said they made his bank strong enough to lose the $2 bil this year.
What did I miss?

You missed that among all the hoopla, JPM is expected to net about $14 billion this year. NOT LOSE $2 billion.

You also missed that there was a counterparty (or several) on the other side of this trade. Someone made $2 billion.

You know nothing about the capital markets. Zero, just like President Zero.

THE STRAW MAN wrote:

<quoted text>OKBOSTON needs to create a straw man (4 year plan) to justify in his mind the need to end the BUSH TAX RATES. His post are full of double speak and moving the topic around like a three card monte dealer. Then you get the "I already stated I am supporting Republikcan this year based on their promises." #115718 (deception) followed by advocating a 90% tax rate. He's pulling the lever for Obama.

okboston advocates a balanced budget as quickly as possible. Everyone wants to cry about the debt and the deficit but honestly, when it comes down to it, most just don't give a good bowel movement about it.

The Dem plan don't balance it for over 20 years and the Republican plan takes 20 years. Both of those use great assumptions like this last recession or the one before it or the one before that never happened.

They also use growth rates that are not likely or even possible at this point in time.

4 years, I don't care if you raise taxes or if you eliminate SS and Medicare. But lets at least start talking about something that will not leave our children and grandchildren $25 plus trillion in debt.

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Federal spending, joe.
Federal SPENDING.
SPENDING.
SPENDING.
SPENDING.
SPENDING.
SPENDING.
SPENDING.
SPENDING.
SPENDING.
Get it?

The United States is a socialist government, get it?

Has been and always will be. Unless you want to join me in calling an end to SS and Medicare.....in any form. You won't because you are a socialist. get it!

Say the Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
My God, what a simpleton. Have you learned NOTHING from participating in this dialogue? What do tax cuts do for the nation? How about letting people keep the fruits of their labor?
But hey, you're just another pseudointellectual wannabe dictator living in West Bumfook, VA, telling people how much money they are allowed to earn before the next dollar is confiscated in the name of The People. Except for people with the "right" Party membership, eh- comrade? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Then lets do away with taxes. I mean really, if that is the best argument you got. Then everyone could keep every dollar they earn.

But hey, you're just another pseudointellectual wannabe dictator living in a place you are afraid to disclose telling people how much money the government confisctes because it contributes nothing to them. Except for people with the "right" Party membership, eh- comrade? You know, the ones that say they are against socialism and wealth redistribution but Lordy, Lordy, don't touch SS and Medicare while you are sucking at the trough. Right comrade? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

UidiotRacesMAkeWorldPeace wrote:

ublic Employment’s Contribution to Past Job Growth
To understand the importance of public employment it is useful to review how the United States’ labor market has changed. Comparing the ratio of jobs in different sectors from 1970 to 2008 shows how different the U.S. labor market is. Employment in agriculture is down 41 percent, in manufacturing it is down 32 percent, and in services it is up 131 percent.[5] The U.S. is a services economy and public employment is included in the services sector. In 2010, public employment was approximately 20 percent of services employment and 16 percent of total employment.[6]
From 1970 to 2008 public employment growth was positive but not as high as private sector employment growth. Public sector employment grew 63 percent compared to 85 percent for the private sector, which means that public sector employment, as a percentage of total employment, declined from 22 percent to 20 percent. When public and private employment changes were compared on an annual basis for years when GDP grew versus when GDP declined, an interesting pattern emerged. The correlation between private and public sector employment growth is 0.985, which means that when private sector employment changes, 98.5 percent of the time public sector employment changes in the same direction.

There is a problem in your stats in that the largest growth has been in healthcare which is counted as private but 50% or about that is tax dollars. Look at all the other growth in private employment (garbage collection, water, road repair and service, etc... that without tax dollars or enforement by localities would not be there.

And if you take a public water employee and make him a private company employee supplying water to the community, other than the profit going in the pockets of the company, what is the difference?

joe wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, we all hear the lemming cry, er, whine. Problem is the government isn't spending enough. Not nearly enough.
You guys keep whining about the effects of spending in the future, but the reality is we must spend more now and more effectively to fuel the economy in order to pay back the debt in the future.
Use the model that business actually uses instead of the doomsday dribble about future debt that is the exact opposite of what an optimistic, free-enterprise business plan would call for.
Quit selling America short. We've NEVER accomplished anything in this country by hunkering down in fear.
None of you even believe in free enterprise or understand what it's predicated on. Bunch of whiny cowards.

I don't think we need to spend more now, I think we need to spend smarter and tax smarter. Unlike the lemmings, that does not necessarilly mean spend less and tax less, though it could.

Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, ok. What evidence do you have that this has EVER worked?? Has it worked in Greece - they spent plenty.
Has Obama's "stimulus" worked? How will pushing more money to states (i.e. unionized workers) stimulate the economy? How will delaying the inevitable need to modernize public sector pension benefits and restructuring entitlement programs by adding trillions in long term debt create growth?
How does opposing all forms of carbon based energy sources while pushing some pie-in-the-sky technology that does not yet exist create economic growth.
How does anyone but a leftist ideologue oppose an absolute no- brainer like the Keystone pipeline?
That's just a few questions. Answer me that.

The US, the depression and WW II.

And every single President that had a recession since then.

Did austerity work for Hoover? Who else tried it since then?