9.2 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Sanity -> 9.2 (7/8/2011 7:01:10 AM)

[image]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/jaeFSWF4SI803VAMwioG.A--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD02MTI7cT04NTt3PTQ5Mg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/Reuters/2011-07-07T172713Z_01_WAS304R_RTRIDSP_3_USA-DEBT-OBAMA-MEETING.jpg[/image]
9.2%


quote:

June Jobs Report: the Ugly, the Ugly and the Ugly

If Hollywood were to make a film about the June jobs report, it would be called The Ugly, The Ugly and The Ugly.

Typically, the monthly jobs report contains some good news, some bad news and some ugly news. And optimism had been building over the June figure, in part because alternate methods of measurement had indicated higher jobs growth. TrimTabs earlier this week said its data indicated the economy added 171,000 new jobs in June, while ADP on Thursday suggested 157,000 private-sector jobs had been added in the month. Add in the slight decline in unemployment claims, falling gas taxes and good preliminary news on retail sales, and there was some hope that the soft patch of April and May was over.

This morning's ugly, ugly, ugly jobs figure throws a large bucket of ice-cold water on that thesis.

Full article her: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/june-jobs-report-ugly-ugly-ugly-132111747.html?sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=




pahunkboy -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 7:25:06 AM)

I think the GOP controlled congress goofed.    Why wont they fix it?




Sanity -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 7:34:45 AM)


Theyre arm wrestling Obama over the underlying issue right now.




rulemylife -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 7:36:56 AM)

From your link:


In all, the private sector added 54,000 jobs.

But government has been shedding jobs consistently for the past year.

It did so again in June, slashing 39,000 jobs. Government spending may be higher, but employment at the federal, state and local level is falling.



So explain this to me.

Conservatives, such as yourself, want to cut government but ignore the fact that cutting government means cutting jobs, while at the same time you complain about high unemployment.




Lucylastic -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 7:41:41 AM)

Where are the jobs??? congress promised jobs, theyve failed dismally , its been seven months, where are the jobs????
They swore they could do it, ... where are all the jobs bills theyve presented even???
WHat happened to them, are they really so impotent and useless they seem to be able to bring up hundreds of cuts to women and children , ad nauseam.
From a finance blog of all things.Snickers


From WashintonPost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-spending-plan-would-cost-700000-jobs-new-report-says/2011/02/28/ABBK9oJ_story.html

A Republican plan to sharply cut federal spending this year would destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012, according to an independent economic analysis set for release Monday.

The report, by Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, offers fresh ammunition to Democrats seeking block the Republican plan, which would terminate dozens of programs and slash federal appropriations by $61 billion over the next seven months.

Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package who has advised both political parties, predicts that the GOP package would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percentage points this year, and by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of next




willbeurdaddy -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:02:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

From your link:


In all, the private sector added 54,000 jobs.

But government has been shedding jobs consistently for the past year.

It did so again in June, slashing 39,000 jobs. Government spending may be higher, but employment at the federal, state and local level is falling.



So explain this to me.

Conservatives, such as yourself, want to cut government but ignore the fact that cutting government means cutting jobs, while at the same time you complain about high unemployment.



Cutting jobs in government is nearly meaningless for overall economic growth if the administrations policies remain anti-business. It marginally reduces the deficit, thats it. Shrinking government jobs is only 1/3 the battle.




Sanity -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:13:14 AM)


Going by the kind of logic that the far left uses, government could hire everybody

Government could pay everybody to sit on their hands, and that would fix everything.... [:D]

While we are at it pay everyone a ten thousand dollars an hour minimum wage.

Hell, we should count everyone who is getting unemployment checks or food stamps, or even SSI as employed, by that sort of crazy logic!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Where are the jobs??? congress promised jobs, theyve failed dismally , its been seven months, where are the jobs????
They swore they could do it, ... where are all the jobs bills theyve presented even???
WHat happened to them, are they really so impotent and useless they seem to be able to bring up hundreds of cuts to women and children , ad nauseam.
From a finance blog of all things.Snickers


From WashintonPost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-spending-plan-would-cost-700000-jobs-new-report-says/2011/02/28/ABBK9oJ_story.html

A Republican plan to sharply cut federal spending this year would destroy 700,000 jobs through 2012, according to an independent economic analysis set for release Monday.

The report, by Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi, offers fresh ammunition to Democrats seeking block the Republican plan, which would terminate dozens of programs and slash federal appropriations by $61 billion over the next seven months.

Zandi, an architect of the 2009 stimulus package who has advised both political parties, predicts that the GOP package would reduce economic growth by 0.5 percentage points this year, and by 0.2 percentage points in 2012, resulting in 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of next



quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

From your link:


In all, the private sector added 54,000 jobs.

But government has been shedding jobs consistently for the past year.

It did so again in June, slashing 39,000 jobs. Government spending may be higher, but employment at the federal, state and local level is falling.



So explain this to me.

Conservatives, such as yourself, want to cut government but ignore the fact that cutting government means cutting jobs, while at the same time you complain about high unemployment.





Lucylastic -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:17:17 AM)

ironic that you find 700,000 jobs cut to be fine..but the overall employment numbers to be unimportant when its pointed back at the repubs , unless the cuts comes from the government workers... arent you speshul
I bet you think Orrin Hatch is right too
dont you




farglebargle -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:23:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Theyre arm wrestling Obama over the underlying issue right now.




That's not how it works.

Congress drafts and passes legislation and sends it to The President for his approval and signature, or veto.

Let me repeat the essential point.

CONGRESS DRAFTS AND PASSES LEGISLATION.

They don't need The President to draft and pass legislation.




farglebargle -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:24:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

From your link:


In all, the private sector added 54,000 jobs.

But government has been shedding jobs consistently for the past year.

It did so again in June, slashing 39,000 jobs. Government spending may be higher, but employment at the federal, state and local level is falling.



So explain this to me.

Conservatives, such as yourself, want to cut government but ignore the fact that cutting government means cutting jobs, while at the same time you complain about high unemployment.



Cutting jobs in government is nearly meaningless for overall economic growth if the administrations policies remain anti-business. It marginally reduces the deficit, thats it. Shrinking government jobs is only 1/3 the battle.


The Obama Administration is ANTI BUSINESS????

Tell us another Fairy-Tale!




farglebargle -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:25:51 AM)

Want to eliminate the deficit?

Let the "temporary" Bush Tax Cuts expire already! They didn't do what they were advertised to do, and it's stupid to throw good money after bad.




Sanity -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:30:44 AM)


A president has certain power over legislation because he signs or vetoes legislation

And sometimes presidents are leaders


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Theyre arm wrestling Obama over the underlying issue right now.




That's not how it works.

Congress drafts and passes legislation and sends it to The President for his approval and signature, or veto.

Let me repeat the essential point.

CONGRESS DRAFTS AND PASSES LEGISLATION.

They don't need The President to draft and pass legislation.




Sanity -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:31:57 AM)



Yes of course, the far lefts answer to everything -

Raise taxes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Want to eliminate the deficit?

Let the "temporary" Bush Tax Cuts expire already! They didn't do what they were advertised to do, and it's stupid to throw good money after bad.




errantgeek -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:37:16 AM)

You know, I'm totally not surprised. That was one hell of an earthquake, and given the tsu...oh. Just another teabagger astroturf thread blaming Obammy for every socioeconomic problem that was, oddly enough, already here on January 19, 2009. Never mind.




mnottertail -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:38:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity



Yes of course, the far lefts answer to everything -

Raise taxes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Want to eliminate the deficit?

Let the "temporary" Bush Tax Cuts expire already! They didn't do what they were advertised to do, and it's stupid to throw good money after bad.



yes, the far lefts answer to everything, borrow and spend.




farglebargle -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:41:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


A president has certain power over legislation because he signs or vetoes legislation

And sometimes presidents are leaders


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Theyre arm wrestling Obama over the underlying issue right now.




That's not how it works.

Congress drafts and passes legislation and sends it to The President for his approval and signature, or veto.

Let me repeat the essential point.

CONGRESS DRAFTS AND PASSES LEGISLATION.

They don't need The President to draft and pass legislation.




So, what you're saying is that John Boeher's leadership is so ineffectual and that the Republican lead Congress so incompetent that they are incapable of performing their Constitutionally mandated roles without Barack Obama to lead them?

In other words... You're calling Barack Obama "Congress' Great Leader"!

Someone write today down on a calendar!

( Isn't that a violation of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances??? )




lockedaway -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:42:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity



Yes of course, the far lefts answer to everything -

Raise taxes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Want to eliminate the deficit?

Let the "temporary" Bush Tax Cuts expire already! They didn't do what they were advertised to do, and it's stupid to throw good money after bad.



Of course, Sanity, liberals want to tax because your success is their failure.  And then there's this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unemployment-rose-to-92-apf-2094293163.html?x=0

And this:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stocks-dive-after-dismal-June-apf-2073081885.html?x=0

And this:

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-lawmakers-still-far-apart-debt-001926322.html              
This link was titled Dismal jobs complicate talks on debt ceiling but it changed.





farglebargle -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:43:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity



Yes of course, the far lefts answer to everything -

Raise taxes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Want to eliminate the deficit?

Let the "temporary" Bush Tax Cuts expire already! They didn't do what they were advertised to do, and it's stupid to throw good money after bad.



yes, the far lefts answer to everything, borrow and spend.


How is returning to normal rates 'borrow and spend'?

How do you feel about eliminating the limits to FICA contributions? Do you agree that someone earning a million dollars should pay MORE than someone earning 200 grand?




Sanity -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:43:55 AM)


When a president makes poor choices he should be held accountable

Were a republican in office I can only imagine the howling we would be hearing from the far left

Posts and threads such as this are mature, dignified and mild in comparison

quote:

ORIGINAL: errantgeek

You know, I'm totally not surprised. That was one hell of an earthquake, and given the tsu...oh. Just another teabagger astroturf thread blaming Obammy for every socioeconomic problem that was, oddly enough, already here on January 19, 2009. Never mind.




mnottertail -> RE: 9.2 (7/8/2011 9:45:45 AM)

Well, when you take W to court for treason, we will look at the next case.  You clean up your own shit first.




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875