Jobs
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
trplnkl
555
He has clearly been in campagin mode since the day he was sworn into office.
Hopefully the sensible portions will be passed.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Oh, because everything I do is covert and so I skillfully use my editorial scalpel. I'm such an operative. "Conveniently left out" ? If something is left out it's because it didn't get in. Simple!
"O" wants to pass it on his own too without congress involvement.. and he doesn't care what anybody else thinks about it. Hail King Barack!!
Babagounj
Strength through joy
anyone recall Cap & Trade, that bill died in Congress, yet The EPA without Congress' approval is enforcing it today.
Same thing with this Job's Bill or correctly it should be Stimulus # 3.
Stimulus #1 & #2 were total failures , so why should I believe the the third waste of money will now work.
Same thing with this Job's Bill or correctly it should be Stimulus # 3.
Stimulus #1 & #2 were total failures , so why should I believe the the third waste of money will now work.
klein
Für Meno :)
And what do you have to lose, since this proposed stimulus would be funded by taxing the millionaires ?
If all fails, again, you'ld end up with some new roads, and updated infrastructure, and even tax cuts for the middle class.
Stay in stalemate until Nov 2012, and who cares if another avoidable US recession comes along until then, right ?
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Hate to break it to you klein but we are in the longest recession on record. The was no recovery like bhos claimed two years ago.
And this taxing the millionaires is B.S..
His jobs bill is dead, and I have not seen him submit a tax the rich only bill to Congress { which is made up of many millionaires }.
Stimulus #2 was for infrastructure improvements, recall " shovel ready projects " that did not exist.
And the promise that unemployment would stay below 8%.
And this taxing the millionaires is B.S..
His jobs bill is dead, and I have not seen him submit a tax the rich only bill to Congress { which is made up of many millionaires }.
Stimulus #2 was for infrastructure improvements, recall " shovel ready projects " that did not exist.
And the promise that unemployment would stay below 8%.
trplnkl
555
Recall the "Dream Act" ? DHS is enforcing that non-law.
Lue C Fur
Evil member
Lue C Fur
Evil member
The Messiah's shovel ready is total BS and he thinks its funny along with the rest of the Liberal idiots...and look who is at the end of the table laughing...is that one of Barrys economic advisors. Maybe the morons on wall street protesting should go to his house. That would be just one of many clips i would be showing Americans if i was a Republican running for office.
Lue C Fur
Evil member
He look...its numbnuts Joe and he is using the typical Democrat scare tatics in one of the worst cities in America...Flint Michigan...make sure you bring your gun and flak jacket if you go there.
Biden Questions Whether Michigan City's Crime Could Rise Without Federal Help
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ould-rise-without-federal-help/#ixzz1ac1ECDnL
Biden Questions Whether Michigan City's Crime Could Rise Without Federal Help
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ould-rise-without-federal-help/#ixzz1ac1ECDnL
Babagounj
Strength through joy
JOBLESS CLAIMS TOP 400K AGAIN...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of people applying for unemployment benefits was mostly unchanged last week.
They need to fall consistently below 375,000 to signal sustainable job growth. They haven't been below that level since February.
Employers have added an average of only 72,000 jobs in the past five months. That's far below the 125,000 per month needed to keep up with population growth. And it's down from an average of 180,000 in the first four months of this year.
Employers laid off 1.66 million people in August, the Labor Department's report said Wednesday.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The number of people applying for unemployment benefits was mostly unchanged last week.
They need to fall consistently below 375,000 to signal sustainable job growth. They haven't been below that level since February.
Employers have added an average of only 72,000 jobs in the past five months. That's far below the 125,000 per month needed to keep up with population growth. And it's down from an average of 180,000 in the first four months of this year.
Employers laid off 1.66 million people in August, the Labor Department's report said Wednesday.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Old And Busted: Obama Regime Touts “Jobs Saved And Created” — New And Hot: “Jobs Supported”…
Next up: Jobs envisioned?
Next up: Jobs envisioned?
(e21 Economics) — The White House has circulated materials asserting that the President’s proposed American Jobs Act (AJA) would “support” nearly 400,000 education jobs. A former colleague of mine has noted that the validity of this claim rests on the definition of the word “support,” prompting a dissection of what exactly the Administration means by this terminology.
Similar claims were made earlier in the Administration with respect to jobs “created or saved” by the 2009 stimulus package. The many problems with those claims have been amply discussed elsewhere and will not be reviewed here in detail. Suffice it to say that one big problem was that the claims were based primarily on modeling assumptions and could neither be verified nor refuted after the fact, thereby leaving little to no informational value. (Moreover, to the extent that rigorous empirical assessments were subsequently conducted, they have undercut the claims). Of perhaps even greater concern, however, is that the concept of “jobs created or saved” appeared deliberately designed to produce more favorable numbers than the neutral standard of “job creation” commonly applied throughout previous presidencies.
If numerical claims do not reliably measure the effects of government policies, that alone is a reason not to make them. But inappropriate use can also boomerang on the authors of the policies if they create a tangible disconnect between advocacy rhetoric and economic reality. To be claiming a powerful positive effect on millions of jobs at a time when so many Americans were losing theirs inevitably introduces skeptical questions, especially in an environment where many Americans are already inclined to be skeptical. Far better to make more prudent, verifiable claims that resonate with Americans’ actual economic experience.
The terminology of “supporting” nearly 400,000 jobs, as it turns out, is even more problematic. It, too, reflects an assumption rather than a metric that can be objectively tested and verified. And it similarly has the problem of being seemingly designed to allow the citation of significant positive numbers. But the “support” metric (also used by DoE to praise similar education funding in last year’s Medicaid law) contains a more glaring problem: it has nearly nothing to do with the policy that it advertises. It does not illuminate the policy’s efficacy, barely reflecting even on its content.
Similar claims were made earlier in the Administration with respect to jobs “created or saved” by the 2009 stimulus package. The many problems with those claims have been amply discussed elsewhere and will not be reviewed here in detail. Suffice it to say that one big problem was that the claims were based primarily on modeling assumptions and could neither be verified nor refuted after the fact, thereby leaving little to no informational value. (Moreover, to the extent that rigorous empirical assessments were subsequently conducted, they have undercut the claims). Of perhaps even greater concern, however, is that the concept of “jobs created or saved” appeared deliberately designed to produce more favorable numbers than the neutral standard of “job creation” commonly applied throughout previous presidencies.
If numerical claims do not reliably measure the effects of government policies, that alone is a reason not to make them. But inappropriate use can also boomerang on the authors of the policies if they create a tangible disconnect between advocacy rhetoric and economic reality. To be claiming a powerful positive effect on millions of jobs at a time when so many Americans were losing theirs inevitably introduces skeptical questions, especially in an environment where many Americans are already inclined to be skeptical. Far better to make more prudent, verifiable claims that resonate with Americans’ actual economic experience.
The terminology of “supporting” nearly 400,000 jobs, as it turns out, is even more problematic. It, too, reflects an assumption rather than a metric that can be objectively tested and verified. And it similarly has the problem of being seemingly designed to allow the citation of significant positive numbers. But the “support” metric (also used by DoE to praise similar education funding in last year’s Medicaid law) contains a more glaring problem: it has nearly nothing to do with the policy that it advertises. It does not illuminate the policy’s efficacy, barely reflecting even on its content.
klein
Für Meno :)
Recession fears in North America recede on strong factory, consumer data
OTTAWA - Canada's factories were humming in August, and U.S. consumers were buying last month, strong indicators the North American recovery is alive and kicking.
Fresh data released Friday shows Canada's manufacturers posted a surprisingly robust 1.4 per cent jump in sales to $47.6 billion, almost three times expectations, while in the U.S., consumers bought enough autos, clothing and furniture in September to boost retail sales by 1.1 per cent.
Last Friday's reports of employment growth in the U.S. and Canada added to the brightening sentiment in equity markets that had seen little to cheer about since late July.
"It actually looks like the economy did rebound with some authority in the third quarter," said BMO's deputy chief economist Douglas Porter.
"I'm (also) quite impressed by how well the basic employment and spending numbers have held up in the U.S.," he added. "That's not to say the risks of a recession have vaporized, but it shows this recovery is more resilient than people give it credit for."
OTTAWA - Canada's factories were humming in August, and U.S. consumers were buying last month, strong indicators the North American recovery is alive and kicking.
Fresh data released Friday shows Canada's manufacturers posted a surprisingly robust 1.4 per cent jump in sales to $47.6 billion, almost three times expectations, while in the U.S., consumers bought enough autos, clothing and furniture in September to boost retail sales by 1.1 per cent.
Last Friday's reports of employment growth in the U.S. and Canada added to the brightening sentiment in equity markets that had seen little to cheer about since late July.
"It actually looks like the economy did rebound with some authority in the third quarter," said BMO's deputy chief economist Douglas Porter.
"I'm (also) quite impressed by how well the basic employment and spending numbers have held up in the U.S.," he added. "That's not to say the risks of a recession have vaporized, but it shows this recovery is more resilient than people give it credit for."
Lue C Fur
Evil member
Our Government Doesn't Create Jobs, It Kills Them
President Obama says government will have to build the nation out of the economic trough."We're the country that built the intercontinental railroad," Obama says. "So how can we now sit back and let China build the
best railroads?" Ironic that he mentions the Chinese.
Progressives used to complain that to build the railroad, bosses abused Chinese workers -- called them "coolies" and treated them badly. Now this is big success?
I guess Obama doesn't know that the transcontinental railroad was a Solyndra-like Big Government scandal. The railroad didn't make economic sense at the time, so the government subsidized construction and gave the companies huge quantities of the best land on the continent. As we should expect, without market discipline -- profit and loss -- contractors ripped off the taxpayers. After all, if you get paid by the amount of track you lay, you'll lay more track than necessary.
Credit Mobilier, the first rail construction company, made enormous profits by overcharging for its work.
To keep the subsidies flowing, it made big contributions to congressmen.
Where have we heard that recently?
The transcontinental railroad lost tons of money. The government never covered its costs, and most rail lines that used the tracks went bankrupt or continued to be subsidized by taxpayers. The Union Pacific and Northern Pacific -- all those rail lines we learned about in history class -- milked the taxpayer and then went broke.
One line worked. The Great Northern never went bankrupt.
It was the railroad that got no subsidies.
We need infrastructure, but the beauty of leaving most of these things to the private sector -- without subsidies, bailouts and other privileges -- is that they would have to be justified by the profit-and-loss test. In a truly free market, when private companies make bad choices, investors lose their own money. This tends to make them careful.
By contrast, when government loses money, it just spends more and raises your taxes, or borrows more, or inflates. Building giant government projects is no way to create jobs. When government spends on infrastructure, it takes money away from projects that consumers might think are more important.
When government isn't killing jobs by sucking money out of the private sector, it kills jobs by smothering the private sector with regulation. I talked to Peter Schiff about all this on my Fox Business show last week.
Schiff is a good authority because he was one of the few people to warn of the housing bust. Now he's had a run-in with the federal government over job creation.
Schiff, who operates a brokerage firm with 150 employees, recently complained to Congress that "regulations are running up the cost of doing business, and a lot of companies never even get started because they can't overcome that regulatory hurdle."
Schiff claims he would have hired a thousand more people but for regulations.
"I had a huge plan to expand. I wanted to open up a lot of offices. I had some capital to do it. I had investors lined up. My business was doing really well. But unfortunately, because of the regulations in the security industry, I was not able to hire."
So if he wants to hire an analyst, he can't just hire him?
"I had to get permission to publish their research, which I didn't get for years. And so I can't pay analysts if I can't sell their research.
People don't appreciate the number of regulations entrepreneurs face. Schiff pays 10 people just to try to figure out if his company is obeying the rules.
"You can't just act very quickly, because everything has to be done through this maze of compliance. Even my brokers find out that maybe 20 percent, 30 percent of their day is involved in compliance-related activity, activity that is inhibiting their productivity. ... All around the country, people are complying with regulations instead of producing, instead of investing and growing the economy. They're trying to survive the regulations."
This is no way to create jobs or wealth. Keynesian pundits and politicians can't understand why businesses sit on cash rather than invest and hire unemployed workers. It's really no mystery. Government is in the way.
Read more: Our Government Doesn't Create Jobs, It Kills Them | Fox News
President Obama says government will have to build the nation out of the economic trough."We're the country that built the intercontinental railroad," Obama says. "So how can we now sit back and let China build the
best railroads?" Ironic that he mentions the Chinese.
Progressives used to complain that to build the railroad, bosses abused Chinese workers -- called them "coolies" and treated them badly. Now this is big success?
I guess Obama doesn't know that the transcontinental railroad was a Solyndra-like Big Government scandal. The railroad didn't make economic sense at the time, so the government subsidized construction and gave the companies huge quantities of the best land on the continent. As we should expect, without market discipline -- profit and loss -- contractors ripped off the taxpayers. After all, if you get paid by the amount of track you lay, you'll lay more track than necessary.
Credit Mobilier, the first rail construction company, made enormous profits by overcharging for its work.
To keep the subsidies flowing, it made big contributions to congressmen.
Where have we heard that recently?
The transcontinental railroad lost tons of money. The government never covered its costs, and most rail lines that used the tracks went bankrupt or continued to be subsidized by taxpayers. The Union Pacific and Northern Pacific -- all those rail lines we learned about in history class -- milked the taxpayer and then went broke.
One line worked. The Great Northern never went bankrupt.
It was the railroad that got no subsidies.
We need infrastructure, but the beauty of leaving most of these things to the private sector -- without subsidies, bailouts and other privileges -- is that they would have to be justified by the profit-and-loss test. In a truly free market, when private companies make bad choices, investors lose their own money. This tends to make them careful.
By contrast, when government loses money, it just spends more and raises your taxes, or borrows more, or inflates. Building giant government projects is no way to create jobs. When government spends on infrastructure, it takes money away from projects that consumers might think are more important.
When government isn't killing jobs by sucking money out of the private sector, it kills jobs by smothering the private sector with regulation. I talked to Peter Schiff about all this on my Fox Business show last week.
Schiff is a good authority because he was one of the few people to warn of the housing bust. Now he's had a run-in with the federal government over job creation.
Schiff, who operates a brokerage firm with 150 employees, recently complained to Congress that "regulations are running up the cost of doing business, and a lot of companies never even get started because they can't overcome that regulatory hurdle."
Schiff claims he would have hired a thousand more people but for regulations.
"I had a huge plan to expand. I wanted to open up a lot of offices. I had some capital to do it. I had investors lined up. My business was doing really well. But unfortunately, because of the regulations in the security industry, I was not able to hire."
So if he wants to hire an analyst, he can't just hire him?
"I had to get permission to publish their research, which I didn't get for years. And so I can't pay analysts if I can't sell their research.
People don't appreciate the number of regulations entrepreneurs face. Schiff pays 10 people just to try to figure out if his company is obeying the rules.
"You can't just act very quickly, because everything has to be done through this maze of compliance. Even my brokers find out that maybe 20 percent, 30 percent of their day is involved in compliance-related activity, activity that is inhibiting their productivity. ... All around the country, people are complying with regulations instead of producing, instead of investing and growing the economy. They're trying to survive the regulations."
This is no way to create jobs or wealth. Keynesian pundits and politicians can't understand why businesses sit on cash rather than invest and hire unemployed workers. It's really no mystery. Government is in the way.
Read more: Our Government Doesn't Create Jobs, It Kills Them | Fox News
moreluck
golden ticket member
Oh, and Canadian doctors don't do tests ? They don't get paid?Sounds like the same method the US doctors are doing. The more tests they do, the more they get paid (oh gee, that's privatized though)!!!!
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
A Comparison of Health Care in Canada and the United States | MyNursingUniforms Blog
Vermont recently adopted the single payer healthcare system.
Similar threads
