RE: The True Job Creators

RE: The True Job Creators (Full Version)

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

Message

Musicmystery -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:01:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: Incidentally, net exports are up, and have been steadily climbing, under Obama's "anti-industry" agenda--an agenda that is frankly almost a carbon copy of Bush's. Where do you get this crap? Sounds like an MSNBC sound bite. Our biggest export is industrial supplies to those countries that are more industry friendly and have the industry to use them, and more jobs. The increase has nothing to do with OBama but with someone making lemonaid out of lemons. Huh? The U.S. exports a wide variety of goods, from computers to aircraft to high quality agricultural goods, cars, and pharaceuticals. AND, for the first time in 62 years, the U.S. is even a net exporter of petroleum products like jet fuel, healing oil and yes, gasoline. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-16/us-oil-boom/52053236/1 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203441704577068670488306242.html As for the "sound bite," exports have gone from over $1 trillion in 2008 to over $2 trillion in 2012. They have steadily climbed since 2009. http://www.forecasts.org/exports.htm

mnottertail -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:02:39 AM)
Obamas Federal Government has 273000 fewer employees than Reagans Federal Government..... Continue on with what you were saying, I am just helping you out here with actual detail.

Arturas -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:04:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: Incidentally, net exports are up, and have been steadily climbing, under Obama's "anti-industry" agenda--an agenda that is frankly almost a carbon copy of Bush's. Where do you get this crap? Sounds like an MSNBC sound bite. Our biggest export is industrial supplies to those countries that are more industry friendly and have the industry to use them, and more jobs. The increase has nothing to do with OBama but with someone making lemonaid out of lemons. Huh? The U.S. exports a wide variety of goods, from computers to aircraft to high quality agricultural goods. AND, for the first time in 62 years, the U.S. is even a net exporter of petroleum products like jet fuel, healing oil and yes, gasoline. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/story/2011-12-16/us-oil-boom/52053236/1 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203441704577068670488306242.html Huh yourself. Three quarters of our exports are not "computers and aircraft" but oil, used to power other countries industries and industrial supplies. This is where the rate increase comes from, not from "computers" or aircraft, I promise.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:05:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Understand that you are trying to convey information to a poster here who doesn't even know the difference between a FUNDING MINIMUM and a MINIMUM BALANCE. Your efforts will be futile.

Arturas -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:07:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Obamas Federal Government has 273000 fewer employees than Reagans Federal Government..... Continue on with what you were saying, I am just helping you out here with actual detail. Government size is unimportant. Goverment policy is. The Government was quite small when it did all those great things during the 40s and early 50s but it's policy was large impact to our infrastructure.

Musicmystery -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:09:01 AM)
quote: Three quarters of our exports are not "computers and aircraft" but oil Got anything other than your say so? 75%? http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/03/14/148460268/what-america-sells-to-the-world

Musicmystery -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:10:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Understand that you are trying to convey information to a poster here who doesn't even know the difference between a FUNDING MINIMUM and a MINIMUM BALANCE. Your efforts will be futile. You were having that cat fight with DomKen. Do try to keep up. Contributing something other than snarky attacks would be nice too. On the topic would be even better. Thanks.

mnottertail -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:13:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Obamas Federal Government has 273000 fewer employees than Reagans Federal Government..... Continue on with what you were saying, I am just helping you out here with actual detail. Government size is unimportant. Goverment policy is. The Government was quite small when it did all those great things during the 40s and early 50s but it's policy was large impact to our infrastructure. Well, it has been government policy for many many years to look on the short bright side and ship everything overseas and allow corporations free rein....and if yu are saying that should change, by god I am for it, tarriffs and dismantle corporations, here I am. Good start.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:19:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Did you think I was referring to you?!! Do try to keep your eye on the ball for once. [:D]

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:31:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Government size is unimportant. As a side topic, I'm not too sure about that one -- the GSA's flagrant wasting of taxpayer money would be an example of Gov. being FAR too big, in my opinion.

Arturas -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:34:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Government size is unimportant. As a side topic, I'm not too sure about that one -- the GSA's flagrant wasting of taxpayer money would be an example of Gov. being FAR too big, in my opinion. I understand and relate to that point. Government size defined by waste is too big right now for sure.

Arturas -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:35:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Obamas Federal Government has 273000 fewer employees than Reagans Federal Government..... Continue on with what you were saying, I am just helping you out here with actual detail. Government size is unimportant. Goverment policy is. The Government was quite small when it did all those great things during the 40s and early 50s but it's policy was large impact to our infrastructure. Well, it has been government policy for many many years to look on the short bright side and ship everything overseas and allow corporations free rein....and if yu are saying that should change, by god I am for it, tarriffs and dismantle corporations, here I am. Good start. I'm not sure where you got that from my post.

mnottertail -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:37:57 AM)
I am not sure I ever get anything from your posts, Arturas. What do you propose then, given that your pemises are dicey, and there arent any true job creators in the military industrial complex or the financial complex right at the mo, nor is there likely to be any in those fields for some time, and arguably never were.

Arturas -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:43:13 AM)
Let's both ask ourselves how Obama reduces the federal employee count in his Government while still having the necessary staff to administrate the growing welfare and disability rolls? Why, the same way he ends the war in Afganistan yet leaves a sizable number of military personal over there: Discharge and outsource at high cost. Why, the same way he staffs medical doctor positions needed to verify disablities: fire and then outsource at high cost. This is all about spin and numbers to the current administration (and MSNBC btw) and the article you got your number from is ignoring outsourcing by the Obama administration. I think outsourcing an entire security force overseas while lowering our permanent military count is one way to spin the numbers and look like we actually left that country. Spin. Spin. Spin.

Arturas -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:48:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am not sure I ever get anything from your posts, Arturas. What do you propose then, given that your pemises are dicey, and there arent any true job creators in the military industrial complex or the financial complex right at the mo, nor is there likely to be any in those fields for some time, and arguably never were. But my "premise" is not dicey. My suggestion is since we are setting on the cheapest and most abundant amount of gas reserves in the world and now know how to get them then we encourage their use in making it cheaper to run industry here than in China and this will rebuild our middle class. Our industry comes back home.

Musicmystery -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:48:27 AM)
quote: the current administration Sorry, but this practice started with the last administration, and in a major way.

Yachtie -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 11:59:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas since we are setting on the cheapest and most abundant amount of gas reserves in the world and now know how to get them then we encourage their use in making it cheaper to run industry here than in China and this will rebuild our middle class. Our industry comes back home. Fracking, which allows drillers to get gas and oil from shale deep underground, triggered a revolution. Gas production in the US has been setting new highs, and as supply overwhelmed demand, prices have collapsed. Gas in storage is at a record high for this time of the year, and some doom-and-gloom prophets maintain that storage will reach capacity this fall, and that producers won’t be able to get rid of their gas and will have to flare it, pushing its price to zero. ... Turns out, the shale gas revolution is an uneconomic activity even at much higher prices and is sustainable only for a limited time and only by blowing through loads of borrowed money. Now debt has piled up, cash flow is negative, and solvency risks are gathering on the horizon. Meanwhile, the low price of gas has bent the demand curve: utilities are shifting massively from coal to gas for power generation. Their demand is eating through the record amount in storage and will clash later this year with diminishing production. It’s a classic example of how a price that is too low will spike, but only after a monumental massacre in the industry. Read.... Havoc and Opportunity in Natural Gas. Just some food for thought.

mnottertail -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 12:13:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am not sure I ever get anything from your posts, Arturas. What do you propose then, given that your pemises are dicey, and there arent any true job creators in the military industrial complex or the financial complex right at the mo, nor is there likely to be any in those fields for some time, and arguably never were. But my "premise" is not dicey. My suggestion is since we are setting on the cheapest and most abundant amount of gas reserves in the world and now know how to get them then we encourage their use in making it cheaper to run industry here than in China and this will rebuild our middle class. Our industry comes back home. And that is why I don't get anything from your posts. Pure fuckin fantasy. World prices are used to set oil price. And shipping bulk worldwide is a little more expensive than refined, obviously, but there aint much left over but the thought when everything is cracked out of it. But that makes the difference between maybe .10 cents to as much as 3 dollars shipping in the 4000 mile range.... there aint a fat hog to be cut in the ass there..... Nice thought, economics dont do anything at all for us. And the price is unlikely to go down much (after all, there is no shortage keeping prices where they are) it is just the market, they can get that much and so they take that much, and the traders dont miss a chance to tell you the sky is falling so they can skin a buck or two out of your wallets on the way.

DomKen -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 12:33:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: So there was no investment between 1945 and 1962 when the top tax rate was over 90%? Are you really that clueless? There was great investment during that time propelled by the potential great profit of selling cars and appliances to hundreds of thousands of G.I.s returning and not wanting to go back to the farm and also the investment of Government in the electrication of the country powering said homes and appliances and the interstate system for said cars and trucks moving said appliances. So, the profit potential was so great that high taxes need to pay for the past war still drove investment. Then, taxes paid for roads and electrical generation and distribution. Now, it is for wealth distribution and pays for welfare in spite of Obama's "shovel ready" nonesense. So in short, high tax rates for capital investments work well when that tax money is used as a like investment toward supporting industry and job makers in the form of cheaper energy and distribution (what, you though the interstate system was built to make it easier for families to do a Sunday drive? Ah, no). Actually corporate profit was quite low uring the period. Prior to Raygun a corporate profit margin of 5% was considered robust. Profit rate does not drive investment. Profit amount drives investment. Henry Ford and his partners invested a great deal of money, risked it all, to build a car with little profit rate per car. It attracted farmers who had money. That drove up sales. More hires which then drove up other side industries and services and on and on. But, the profit margin was low so profit margin is meaningless unless it goes negative. You claimed investment between 45 and 62 was high due to vry high profit rates. That was not true. What your discourse into Ford has on that subject is a mystery.

DomKen -> RE: The True Job Creators (5/24/2012 12:35:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So that one share of GE will cost you, the etrade way, $529.99 ($19 for the stock, 9.99 commission and $500 to open an account). Oh my GAWD... clearly you know absolutely NOTHING about trading, let alone BANKING!!! Pssst... as much of a shock as this might be for you, ummm... you do realize the $500 goes into a BANK ACCOUNT... to FUND any trades you might want to make... and that you DON'T have to spend ALL $500 right?!! Have you always been this completely ignorant about finance?!! [8\|] The $500 is a minimum balance. To keep the brokerage account open that money is tied up. WRONG... WRONG... WRONG!!! Once again, you PRETEND as if you know what you're blathering on about, and yet ONCE AGAIN... you show how absolutely CLUELESS you are about finance. The $500 is to FUND the account when opening it, NOTHING MORE -- there is NO "MINIMUM BALANCE" TO "KEEP THE BROKERAGE ACCOUNT OPEN" AS YOU ALLEGE!!! Got that?!! And anyone reading this can simply contact eTrade to confirm you don't have a clue as to what you're spouting off about here -- yet AGAIN!!! [8\|] from etrade quote: NOTE: For E*TRADE Securities accounts (except retirement and custodial), an account minimum deposit of either at least $500 in cash or a deposit of securities is required within 60 days of account opening for the account to remain active https://express.etrade.com/app/brokerage/page1B-1-2-accttype So this is another thing you're simply wrong about.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875