RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed)

RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (Full Version)

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

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/3/2012 3:53:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk 1. you are in Ohio. How many new jobs do you think he created with the bailout of the Auto Industry? 500,000 yes. Zero. quote: 2. Frakking done right is a winner. Not sure why Kasich is so set on doing it on public grounds when there is plenty of private property ready for it. Cheap, local, natural gas. Right now that gas is LNG'd from overseas. You pay cause it helps out everyone in the community. You sign companies up to contracts that keeps them there for x amount of years no matter what. For Northeast Ohio you would have signifcant growth around Ashtabula and the surrounding area. Mount Union, Akron, Case Western, CSU would all benefit. http://www.ohio.com/news/local-news/northeast-ohio-rocked-by-11th-earthquake-linked-to-youngstown-injection-wells-1.252977 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/02/ohio-earthquakes-caused-by-wastewater-well-drilling_n_1180094.html quote: 3. Well that would be the plan. Either replace what you use now with alternative sources, cut consumption and have North American sources. Do recall that my post originally was in response to subspaceseven's accusing Romney about not talking details. I was simply pointing out that Obama isn't talking details either. 4. Hybrids? I assume it is a nice marketing tool that lets them make the product for a similar price but charge more. If you made more of them the cost would go down. But, making more of them would be stupid if there isn't demand for them. And, there is a limited demand for them. quote: 5. Take the ones laid off and add in another 100,000 I don't think you are getting close the numbers needed to address the education gap that we have with the rest of the world. This is where you get creative too. Get certain industries to help finance teachers. It helps them, not hurt. So, instead of talking about rehiring the laid off teachers, he's just going for broke and increasing science and math teachers by 100,000. You do realize that local education employment is up 473K since Bush took office, right? And, that includes all the losses we've seen in the last 4 years. We had a peak of about 700K more local educators than when Bush took office when Obama took office (not alluding to anything, just simply putting that fact out there). I may have to dig into that to see how our education employment has tracked along with our global education ranking. quote: 6. Japan didn't spend. Thats the point. They only cut. CEO's are the only people that complain about regulations. For it forces them to actually work. Its also a talking point conservatives use each time they want to bang on democrats. The complaint doesn't hold water.....if regulations were a detriment to business in the US,,,,fracking would be impossible. Source? Everything I've read say they did spend.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/4/2012 4:53:30 AM)
1. A person living in Toledo is going to tell me that no new jobs were created by the bailout. If you aren't going to have an honest discussion I will hand you back to tazzy. Good luck.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/4/2012 1:16:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk 1. A person living in Toledo is going to tell me that no new jobs were created by the bailout. If you aren't going to have an honest discussion I will hand you back to tazzy. Good luck. Guess what. I'm dead ass right. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=city:PA391300&fdim_y=seasonality:U&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+of+toledo,+ohio If you care to look, you'll see that the unemployment rate in Toledo was under 6% in October 2006. At the beginning of 2009, it was 13.3%. As of July 2012, it's down to 9.1%. You can claim that there are more jobs in Toledo than there were at the start of Obama's term and be correct. But, can you say those jobs weren't there in 2006? Thus, those aren't new jobs, just refilling the old jobs.

Politesub53 -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/4/2012 4:46:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Guess what. I'm dead ass right. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=city:PA391300&fdim_y=seasonality:U&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+of+toledo,+ohio If you care to look, you'll see that the unemployment rate in Toledo was under 6% in October 2006. At the beginning of 2009, it was 13.3%. As of July 2012, it's down to 9.1%. You can claim that there are more jobs in Toledo than there were at the start of Obama's term and be correct. But, can you say those jobs weren't there in 2006? Thus, those aren't new jobs, just refilling the old jobs. Your statement, while seemingly correct, could be way off of the mark..... Here in the UK plenty of full time manufacturing jobs have been lost. Many have been replaced by jobs in retail or call centres, so while we have new jobs, old ones havent been replaced. I am sure many of the guys on low wages stacking shelves would prefer to still be working in decent paying factory jobs. Add to that many retailers have laid off full time staff, and replaced them with lower paid staff working less hours. Thus avoiding employers contributions to certain benefits, like company pension schemes or holiday paid. To put this another day, if 100 people are working 40 hours, or 200 people are only working 20 hours, then yes indeed, twice as many people are working. The reality is it is still only the same number of jobs.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/4/2012 4:57:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk 1. A person living in Toledo is going to tell me that no new jobs were created by the bailout. If you aren't going to have an honest discussion I will hand you back to tazzy. Good luck. Guess what. I'm dead ass right. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=city:PA391300&fdim_y=seasonality:U&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+of+toledo,+ohio If you care to look, you'll see that the unemployment rate in Toledo was under 6% in October 2006. At the beginning of 2009, it was 13.3%. As of July 2012, it's down to 9.1%. You can claim that there are more jobs in Toledo than there were at the start of Obama's term and be correct. But, can you say those jobs weren't there in 2006? Thus, those aren't new jobs, just refilling the old jobs. your theory then is no one has ever created a new job. Since full employment is 0% unemployment any job filled to get to that 0% is just an old job that is being filled, no? So I will take your point. Obama has filled a lot of old jobs in toledo. Won't even ask you to imagine your unemployment rate out there if jeep and chrysler would have went out of business. Spin it anyway you want to. Manufacturing jobs in Ohio have been created for the first time since the 90's.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/4/2012 7:25:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Guess what. I'm dead ass right. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=city:PA391300&fdim_y=seasonality:U&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+of+toledo,+ohio If you care to look, you'll see that the unemployment rate in Toledo was under 6% in October 2006. At the beginning of 2009, it was 13.3%. As of July 2012, it's down to 9.1%. You can claim that there are more jobs in Toledo than there were at the start of Obama's term and be correct. But, can you say those jobs weren't there in 2006? Thus, those aren't new jobs, just refilling the old jobs. Your statement, while seemingly correct, could be way off of the mark..... Here in the UK plenty of full time manufacturing jobs have been lost. Many have been replaced by jobs in retail or call centres, so while we have new jobs, old ones havent been replaced. I am sure many of the guys on low wages stacking shelves would prefer to still be working in decent paying factory jobs. Add to that many retailers have laid off full time staff, and replaced them with lower paid staff working less hours. Thus avoiding employers contributions to certain benefits, like company pension schemes or holiday paid. To put this another day, if 100 people are working 40 hours, or 200 people are only working 20 hours, then yes indeed, twice as many people are working. The reality is it is still only the same number of jobs. Your argument is more supportive of my claim than not, Polite. We lost a lot of construction jobs and a lot of manufacturing jobs (several plants closed shop, moved, etc.). We have a very strong auto workforce and they were on the ropes. Bailing out the auto companies allowed for the auto manufacturers to retool, rehire, etc. That also supports tertiary businesses that support the auto company. We still have A LOT of people not being employed that were employed 5 or 6 years ago. Thus, my rationale that no new jobs were created, but old jobs were resumed is more accurate than not. Toledo has also been shedding population, so even getting to 5% unemployment may not mean that we have more jobs than we did at the height.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/4/2012 7:31:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk 1. A person living in Toledo is going to tell me that no new jobs were created by the bailout. If you aren't going to have an honest discussion I will hand you back to tazzy. Good luck. Guess what. I'm dead ass right. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=city:PA391300&fdim_y=seasonality:U&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+of+toledo,+ohio If you care to look, you'll see that the unemployment rate in Toledo was under 6% in October 2006. At the beginning of 2009, it was 13.3%. As of July 2012, it's down to 9.1%. You can claim that there are more jobs in Toledo than there were at the start of Obama's term and be correct. But, can you say those jobs weren't there in 2006? Thus, those aren't new jobs, just refilling the old jobs. your theory then is no one has ever created a new job. Since full employment is 0% unemployment any job filled to get to that 0% is just an old job that is being filled, no? So I will take your point. Obama has filled a lot of old jobs in toledo. Won't even ask you to imagine your unemployment rate out there if jeep and chrysler would have went out of business. Spin it anyway you want to. Manufacturing jobs in Ohio have been created for the first time since the 90's. LMAO Full employment is considered to be in the range of 4-5% unemployment (accounting for people being fired/hired or in some state of flux at the time of survey). Additionally, if all the jobs lost were auto jobs and all the jobs gained were widgets for the solar industry, those would all be new jobs. Laying people off and rehiring them for the same job isn't creating a new job. Imagine what would happen if it were. As a CEO of a company, I could lay off all my employees every Friday at 5pm and rehire them all Monday morning at 9. I'm creating how many new jobs weekly, no less, now?

Politesub53 -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 3:34:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Your argument is more supportive of my claim than not, Polite. We lost a lot of construction jobs and a lot of manufacturing jobs (several plants closed shop, moved, etc.). We have a very strong auto workforce and they were on the ropes. Bailing out the auto companies allowed for the auto manufacturers to retool, rehire, etc. That also supports tertiary businesses that support the auto company. We still have A LOT of people not being employed that were employed 5 or 6 years ago. Thus, my rationale that no new jobs were created, but old jobs were resumed is more accurate than not. Toledo has also been shedding population, so even getting to 5% unemployment may not mean that we have more jobs than we did at the height. I was talking jobs in general, in which case we differ in our views. If you wish to speak just on the autotrade you need to start from when Obama was sworn in and when his policies started to take effect. That would be Jan 2009 and not 2006. If you are truly suggesting jobs rise and fall with demand, then Obama stimulated the demand and hence created new jobs. You only fill an old job as someone leaves and is replaced. If it happens someone took a similar job, five years later, then it is indeed a new job.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 5:13:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk 1. A person living in Toledo is going to tell me that no new jobs were created by the bailout. If you aren't going to have an honest discussion I will hand you back to tazzy. Good luck. Guess what. I'm dead ass right. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=city:PA391300&fdim_y=seasonality:U&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+of+toledo,+ohio If you care to look, you'll see that the unemployment rate in Toledo was under 6% in October 2006. At the beginning of 2009, it was 13.3%. As of July 2012, it's down to 9.1%. You can claim that there are more jobs in Toledo than there were at the start of Obama's term and be correct. But, can you say those jobs weren't there in 2006? Thus, those aren't new jobs, just refilling the old jobs. your theory then is no one has ever created a new job. Since full employment is 0% unemployment any job filled to get to that 0% is just an old job that is being filled, no? So I will take your point. Obama has filled a lot of old jobs in toledo. Won't even ask you to imagine your unemployment rate out there if jeep and chrysler would have went out of business. Spin it anyway you want to. Manufacturing jobs in Ohio have been created for the first time since the 90's. LMAO Full employment is considered to be in the range of 4-5% unemployment (accounting for people being fired/hired or in some state of flux at the time of survey). Additionally, if all the jobs lost were auto jobs and all the jobs gained were widgets for the solar industry, those would all be new jobs. Laying people off and rehiring them for the same job isn't creating a new job. Imagine what would happen if it were. As a CEO of a company, I could lay off all my employees every Friday at 5pm and rehire them all Monday morning at 9. I'm creating how many new jobs weekly, no less, now? You arent making sense. Like Romney you seem to want to have it all ways. Which is it. If people lose their jobs and are then are employed again is that a new job? So all the jobs that have been rehired at Republic and US Steel....They aren't new jobs they existed before but they haven't existed for over a decade....Is that a new job? If not, then most if not all jobs are not new jobs. Any job that was brought back in construction under your rule wouldn't be new either. Since it was there before. So which is it Mittens.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 5:30:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Your argument is more supportive of my claim than not, Polite. We lost a lot of construction jobs and a lot of manufacturing jobs (several plants closed shop, moved, etc.). We have a very strong auto workforce and they were on the ropes. Bailing out the auto companies allowed for the auto manufacturers to retool, rehire, etc. That also supports tertiary businesses that support the auto company. We still have A LOT of people not being employed that were employed 5 or 6 years ago. Thus, my rationale that no new jobs were created, but old jobs were resumed is more accurate than not. Toledo has also been shedding population, so even getting to 5% unemployment may not mean that we have more jobs than we did at the height. I was talking jobs in general, in which case we differ in our views. If you wish to speak just on the autotrade you need to start from when Obama was sworn in and when his policies started to take effect. That would be Jan 2009 and not 2006. If you are truly suggesting jobs rise and fall with demand, then Obama stimulated the demand and hence created new jobs. You only fill an old job as someone leaves and is replaced. If it happens someone took a similar job, five years later, then it is indeed a new job. I do understand your point, and I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from. I wasn't simply talking about the auto trade, thought that does dominate Toledo and Toledo politics. How much did the bailouts aid the auto trade? Who bailed out the auto trade? Bush passed them, but Obama administrated them. So, who refilled those jobs? You do see the rhetoric here, too, don't you? Bush got blamed for not creating any jobs, but he's taking the hit for the dot com bust, the effects of 9/11 and not getting any credit for the employment numbers he did have right up to the end. Compare Bush's peak unemployment and Obama's current unemployment, and that paints a different picture (and Obama was a Senator not long after Bush's unemployment numbers peaked).

DesideriScuri -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 5:35:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk You arent making sense. Like Romney you seem to want to have it all ways. Which is it. If people lose their jobs and are then are employed again is that a new job? So all the jobs that have been rehired at Republic and US Steel....They aren't new jobs they existed before but they haven't existed for over a decade....Is that a new job? If not, then most if not all jobs are not new jobs. Any job that was brought back in construction under your rule wouldn't be new either. Since it was there before. So which is it Mittens. I am making sense. A job that's been idle for 10 years can't be considered refilling an old job. Thus, it's a "new" job. In reference to your construction example, that would depend on the construction being done. If it's the same project, then it's not a new job. If they are new projects (akin to the ones going on to retool and expand the Toledo auto plants), then they are new jobs. If you're one a house construction crew and you get laid off, if you're hired to do that same job and resume that same activity, how can that be considered a new job?

DomYngBlk -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 8:27:08 AM)
If I am building a house. Don't matter if it is on Orchard or Maple street. Still the same job isn't it? Under your prescription that wouldn't be a new job. Either one accepts the standard that is set for developing the measurement system or you create a new one. Which do you want

DomYngBlk -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 8:43:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Your argument is more supportive of my claim than not, Polite. We lost a lot of construction jobs and a lot of manufacturing jobs (several plants closed shop, moved, etc.). We have a very strong auto workforce and they were on the ropes. Bailing out the auto companies allowed for the auto manufacturers to retool, rehire, etc. That also supports tertiary businesses that support the auto company. We still have A LOT of people not being employed that were employed 5 or 6 years ago. Thus, my rationale that no new jobs were created, but old jobs were resumed is more accurate than not. Toledo has also been shedding population, so even getting to 5% unemployment may not mean that we have more jobs than we did at the height. I was talking jobs in general, in which case we differ in our views. If you wish to speak just on the autotrade you need to start from when Obama was sworn in and when his policies started to take effect. That would be Jan 2009 and not 2006. If you are truly suggesting jobs rise and fall with demand, then Obama stimulated the demand and hence created new jobs. You only fill an old job as someone leaves and is replaced. If it happens someone took a similar job, five years later, then it is indeed a new job. I do understand your point, and I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from. I wasn't simply talking about the auto trade, thought that does dominate Toledo and Toledo politics. How much did the bailouts aid the auto trade? Who bailed out the auto trade? Bush passed them, but Obama administrated them. So, who refilled those jobs? You do see the rhetoric here, too, don't you? Bush got blamed for not creating any jobs, but he's taking the hit for the dot com bust, the effects of 9/11 and not getting any credit for the employment numbers he did have right up to the end. Compare Bush's peak unemployment and Obama's current unemployment, and that paints a different picture (and Obama was a Senator not long after Bush's unemployment numbers peaked). I don't have to tell you how much the Auto Bailout aided the trade. If Chrysler and Jeep would have closed you could simply made Toledo into a park cause no one would live there. The only spin I see is from the right. Who want to castigate the auto bailout as some sort of socialist program. Bush passed the first 17 billion. Credit for that. Obama expanded it with more money and verifiable results. Sort of like what a "Real" businessman would do right? Democrats aren't the ones that don't want to talk about Bush. That is republicans. He gets credit for stepping up just after 9/11. I don't think anyone will argue that. However, I don't think people on the right give enough credit to President Obama for not letting us slide into a deep deep depression. The balancing act that happened from Nov 2008 onwards. So comparing his numbers vs bush's is apples and oranges. If you want to give push the credit for the employment of the Auto Industry with the bailout. Fine with me. Then you will agree it was a good thing? See, Romney/Ryan says it isn't or wasn't a good thing. Hence, why they are going to get their asses handed to them in Ohio

DesideriScuri -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 8:47:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk If I am building a house. Don't matter if it is on Orchard or Maple street. Still the same job isn't it? Under your prescription that wouldn't be a new job. Either one accepts the standard that is set for developing the measurement system or you create a new one. Which do you want Apparently, a new one is in order. This time, let's make it accurate and not partisan, k? Edited to add: And, I'm not saying it's swayed one way or the other. It can be manipulated by either party and they can manipulate it regardless of which one is in power. That's the problem. That's what needs to be addressed.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 8:51:02 AM)
So why do we only hear complaints about it now...when it is favoring Obama?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 9:05:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk So why do we only hear complaints about it now...when it is favoring Obama? Oh?!? There were no outcries against Bush when unemployment was high (within his term)? And, how suspect is it that the unemployment % came down now? How is it they are just getting around to updating numbers from months and months ago? I sincerely doubt the people behind the stats have any desire in making an incumbent look bad on purpose.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 9:09:13 AM)
I dont think anyone was complaining about the method of acquiring the number. Now, the right is decrying the methodology. Whats next. Blaming the states for reporting bad numbers?

DomYngBlk -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 9:11:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk So why do we only hear complaints about it now...when it is favoring Obama? Oh?!? There were no outcries against Bush when unemployment was high (within his term)? And, how suspect is it that the unemployment % came down now? How is it they are just getting around to updating numbers from months and months ago? I sincerely doubt the people behind the stats have any desire in making an incumbent look bad on purpose. And can we go back. You agree then that the bailout was a good thing?

Owner59 -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 9:14:04 AM)
DesideriScuri "Zero." Considering Mitt wanted to let Detroit fail(our best and biggest single industry)how many jobs would Ohio have from the auto industry....? Less then zero...... Another way of saying Mitt.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Prez debate (schedule enclosed) (10/5/2012 9:42:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk So why do we only hear complaints about it now...when it is favoring Obama? Oh?!? There were no outcries against Bush when unemployment was high (within his term)? And, how suspect is it that the unemployment % came down now? How is it they are just getting around to updating numbers from months and months ago? I sincerely doubt the people behind the stats have any desire in making an incumbent look bad on purpose. And can we go back. You agree then that the bailout was a good thing? And, no, I don't agree the bailout was a good thing. The issue is, it can't be proven that the bailouts gave us better results than not bailing them out. We can engage in story telling about outcomes and what it would look like, but it would be conjecture on both our parts, and we'd both likely inflate the hyperbole to make our story look better/worse. Unless you can tell me that you have a WABAC machine, went back, nixed the bailout and watched the past 4 years unfold, then used the WABAC machine again to go back to what we actually did because it was better, you can't prove this was better than not bailing them out. Unfortunately, I can't prove that it wasn't, either. The fact of the matter is, a lot of people got fucked by the Government by those bailouts and how the resulting bankruptcies were run. Ford, as a company got the shaft (no pun intended). They got no bailout money. How many more vehicles would they have sold had GM and Chrysler not been bailed out? And, you are also grading the effects of the bailout without considering the growth of new car companies rising in place of GM and Chrysler. Penske was looking to buy Saturn (don't know why that fell through). Ford would have had to expand. Wouldn't it have been pretty damn smart to buy up the plants and factories that were now idled, and hire the workers idled along with them? Hell, Ford could have bought Dodge or Chevy and continued to run those plants. No, I don't think the bailouts were a good thing. I think things are still going to get worse, actually. I think things are necessarily going to get worse. Misallocation of resources drove the bubble. All those resources haven't been allowed out of the Market yet. Until then, we won't truly be stable. Research "The Business Cycle" according to the Austrian School of Economics. If you disagree with their Business Cycle, start a thread and we can discuss it.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875