July Jobs Report

[Guest]

Stock market soars over the good news.

Romney calls the numbers Disappointing.

As I look at the rest of the world, I am seeing Obama's policies working better and better. We just can't take the chance of slipping back into the mistakes made by the Bush administration. The recovery is slow but steady as to getting worse as it did under Bush Jr.

To Obama I must say: :bigbow:

[Guest]

obviously you read the Liberal media who Lie Lie Lie. Jobs are down, down, down, unemployment is UP, UP, UP food stamp recepients are up, welfare is UP, prices are UP, gas is UP, dependency on government is UP, UP, UP. Obama killed jobs with the stopping of coal mining in W Wa, the Keystone pipeline, the space shuttle program and on and on. He is intentionally dismantling the U.S. systematically and continues on his path to destroy the U.S.A. Romney is looking great!! Everywhere I go , everyone I talk to say they have had it with Obama and his czars. Times up. He didn't live up to his promises. He has NO RECORD to run on now. Never saw a spread sheet hin his life. Has no idea how to run businesses. Romney on the other hand has great business experience and will get this country back to work!! 95 days and counting!!

[Guest]

Stock market soars over the good news.

Romney calls the numbers Disappointing.

As I look at the rest of the world, I am seeing Obama's policies working better and better. We just can't take the chance of slipping back into the mistakes made by the Bush administration. The recovery is slow but steady as to getting worse as it did under Bush Jr.

To Obama I must say: :bigbow:

Amen Brother!

[Guest]

Stock market soars over the good news.

Romney calls the numbers Disappointing.

As I look at the rest of the world, I am seeing Obama's policies working better and better. We just can't take the chance of slipping back into the mistakes made by the Bush administration. The recovery is slow but steady as to getting worse as it did under Bush Jr.

To Obama I must say: :bigbow:

I do view Romney probably going the same way as Bush if Romney gets the White House. I really do not see Romney putting the brakes on various banking practices which contributed greatly to the economic troubles we are in at the moment.

Paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghainstan have also contributed greatly to the national debt. Now Mitt Romney seems to be kicking at the sleeping dog--no chihuahua but the biggest and meanest of pitt bulls-- which is the peace settlement over the Palestinians in Jerusalem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

[Guest]

Stock market soars over the good news.

Romney calls the numbers Disappointing.

As I look at the rest of the world, I am seeing Obama's policies working better and better. We just can't take the chance of slipping back into the mistakes made by the Bush administration. The recovery is slow but steady as to getting worse as it did under Bush Jr.

To Obama I must say: :bigbow:

Actually the report is disappointing although everyone is happy that we made some jobs at least.

But for the record...

"The unemployment rate has fallen from a Great Recession high of 10 percent in October 2009 to 8.3 percent, according to the latest jobs report from the Labor Department.

But make no mistake: in two key ways, the labor market has gotten worse."

A Better Economy May Not Fix The Jobless Problem - US News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/08/03/a-better-economy-may-not-fix-the-jobless-problem-the-jobless-rate-has-declined-but-the-average-length-of-unemployment-remains-uncomfortably-high)

The unemployment problem continues to grow and in fact get much worse.

I am also happy on the DJ rise....now if they just start to hire people ! And keep in mind that the DJ is now reacting to whatever happens in Europe thus not the best indicator of how we are doing, but nice to see it go up.

I offer to you that our deficit continues to rise and THAT will stifle growth on this country for a long time.

Is it all Obama's fault....of course not, but he wasted an entire year feeding the deficit and ignoring what was happening at the base of the economy.

We must cut spending....and get the country back to work. We are in a very very dangerous situation.

[Guest]

I also offer to those who choose to fawn over the President...

"Only in a world of lowered, New Normal expectations was the July jobs report anything less than another disaster for U.S. workers. Nonfarm payrolls rose 163,000 last month as the unemployment rate rose to 8.3%. In addition, employment for May and June was revised by 6,000 jobs.

– Not only is the 8.3% unemployment rate way above the 5.6% unemployment rate that Team Obama predicted for July 2012 if Congress passed the $800 billion stimulus plan. It’s way above the 6.0% unemployment rate they predicted if no stimulus was passed.

– Job growth, as measured by nonfarm payrolls, has average about 75,000 jobs a month during the Obama recovery for a total of 2.7 million jobs. Context: During the first three years of the Reagan Recovery, job growth averaged 273,000 a month for a total of 9.8 million. If you adjust for the larger U.S. population today, the Reagan Recovery averaged 360,000 jobs a month for a three-year total of 13 million jobs.

– This continues to be the longest stretch of 8% or higher unemployment since the Great Depression, 42 straight months.

– If the labor force participation rate was the same as when Obama took office in January 2009, the unemployment rate would be 11.0%.

– Even if you take into account that the LFP should be declining as America ages, the unemployment rate would be 10.6%."

July jobs report: America’s labor market depression continues | AEIdeas (http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/08/july-jobs-report-americas-labor-market-depression-continues/)

We are in trouble......if keeping your head in the sand to serve your political beliefs is what you want, that is your choice but do not allow the machines to sway you from what is true.

[Guest]

The private sector has added 4.5 million jobs in the past 29 months. Just think how many more jobs could have been created if congress had passed the president's The American Jobs Act, which he put out there almost a year ago in September 2011.

What is Mitt Romney's plan for more jobs, except for five trillion dollars in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires (on top of the Bush tax cuts) and less regulation?

[Guest]

The private sector has added 4.5 million jobs in the past 29 months. Just think how many more jobs could have been created if congress had passed the president's The American Jobs Act, which he put out there almost a year ago in September 2011.

What is Mitt Romney's plan for more jobs, except for five trillion dollars in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires (on top of the Bush tax cuts) and less regulation?

First of all, I am sure it was by accident because your interest is actually in jobs and not just political rhetoric, you failed to mention the 30 odd bills in the Senate that are not allowed to even be discussed that promote jobs...the failure is per Reid who has deemed them unimportant.

In addition, on the Jobs bill you speak of, I offer the following..

" President Obama anticipated Republican resistance to his jobs program, but he is now meeting increasing pushback from his own party. Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/us/politics/democrats-in-congress-balking-at-obamas-jobs-bill.html

"Boy, do I feel like an idiot. I've been out there on radio and TV in the last few months saying that I thought there was a chance Barack Obama was listening to the popular anger against Wall Street that drove the Occupy movement, that decisions like putting a for-real law enforcement guy like New York AG Eric Schneiderman in charge of a mortgage fraud task force meant he was at least willing to pay lip service to public outrage against the banks.

Then the JOBS Act happened.

"Boy, do I feel like an idiot. I've been out there on radio and TV in the last few months saying that I thought there was a chance Barack Obama was listening to the popular anger against Wall Street that drove the Occupy movement, that decisions like putting a for-real law enforcement guy like New York AG Eric Schneiderman in charge of a mortgage fraud task force meant he was at least willing to pay lip service to public outrage against the banks.

Then the JOBS Act happened.

The "Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act" (in addition to everything else, the Act has an annoying, redundant title) will very nearly legalize fraud in the stock market."

Why Obama's JOBS Act Couldn't Suck Worse | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-obamas-jobs-act-couldnt-suck-worse-20120409)

"The dim news about the current economic situation has prompted the Obama administration to put forward its latest, desperate effort to reverse the tide by urging passage of The American Jobs Act (AJA), a turgid 155-page bill. The AJA’s only certain effect is to make everything worse than it already is by asking Congress to tighten the stranglehold that government regulation has already placed on the economy.

That sad fact would certainly elude anyone who accepted the president’s justification for the AJA when he sent the bill to Congress. This bill, he said, will "put more people back to work and put more money in the pockets of working Americans. And it will do so without adding a dime to the deficit." How? Why, by closing "corporate tax loopholes" and insisting that the wealthiest American’s pay their "fair share" of taxes."

What is so striking about Obama’s shopworn rhetoric is its juvenile intellectual quality. His explanation for how the AJA will create jobs is a non-starter because he does not explain how we get from here to there. As in so many other cases, the president thinks that waving a wand over a problem will make his most ardent wishes come true, even when similar earlier efforts have proved to be dismal failures. This dreadful hodgepodge of a bill will likely be dead-on-arrival in Congress, but it remains a patriotic duty to explicate some of its worst provisions."


Obama (http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/94346/)

"Barack Obama continued his sales blitz across the country Tuesday, touting his jobs plan and scolding Republicans in Congress more than once to “pass this bill.”

There was only one rather embarrassing problem: his $447 billion proposal was blocked in the Senate—by his fellow Democrats."

Obama's Jobs Bill Vote Blocked by Reid Over Lack of Democratic Support - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/05/obama-s-jobs-bill-vote-blocked-by-reid-over-lack-of-democratic-support.html)

Bottom line on why it is not passed ? It was another political ploy and even his own party didnt buy in which is becoming more and more the case,

Please explain why you keep referring to this ? I ask because Harry Reid pulled it from being voted on so as to save embarassment to the President !

[Guest]

if Obama is really doing such a great job n foreign relations then I am sure you won't mind listing a few to give the rest of us the same feeling.

When one lists the 4.5 million jobs created there are a couple of things to keep in mind:
Where were they created?
How many were full time with benefits? (today there are millions of part time job holders who have taken a part time/no benefits job while waiting for a real job...they consider themselves unemployed).
How many jobs have gone away? It doesn't matter if 5 million were added if 6 million went away.
How many people have given up looking for a job and are not in any reported numbers any more?

It is the above numbers netted out that can allow showing more new jobs than expected yet unemployment goes up.

Merely bragging about the 4.5 million jobs added represents one (very small) aspect of the unemployment problem.

The reality of the economy precludes ala carte out of context representations!!

Is it a newly released talking point to start referring to Romney as Bush like? It must be it hasn't been a dart until now.

btk

[Guest]

The private sector has added 4.5 million jobs in the past 29 months. Just think how many more jobs could have been created if congress had passed the president's The American Jobs Act, which he put out there almost a year ago in September 2011.

What is Mitt Romney's plan for more jobs, except for five trillion dollars in tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires (on top of the Bush tax cuts) and less regulation?

if the increase in job numbers are fact rather than manufactured/manipulated, plese explain to me why the unemployment rate continues to rise?

[Guest]

Stock market soars over the good news.

Romney calls the numbers Disappointing.

As I look at the rest of the world, I am seeing Obama's policies working better and better. We just can't take the chance of slipping back into the mistakes made by the Bush administration. The recovery is slow but steady as to getting worse as it did under Bush Jr.

To Obama I must say: :bigbow:

may i have a reference to your info; please/thankyou.

do you think the unemployed aerospace industry employees in florida feel the same way toward the recovery as you post?

[Guest]

Let me add a bit more reality to this...beyond the fact that the JOBS bill being touted is so bad that even Dems do not want it and Reid will not even put it up for a vote......the numbers just arrived are really bad.

Those who are searching, not for jobs, but political validation should note that the labor department each month uses what they call "phantom jobs" to cover new start up companies, etc. for which they cannot count in any way and just guess, they usually add based on activity.

In July, the month that folks are getting all excited about, they usually DEDUCT jobs from the report because it is in the middle of summer and very very few start ups, etc.

This July, again for the report we are all excited about, the labor department.....ADDED 40,000 jobs for some unknown reason.

Now those of you who really could care less whether jobs are being created and more in love with adoring the President, you will not find much mention of this in msm because it would do harm...the DJ would go down, consumer confidence would suffer, etc, so please do your bowing and adoring....we need JOBS.

"The word psychosis derives from the Greek words psyche (mind) and osis (abnormal condition). Thus, an abnormal condition of the mind is one where you are disconnected from reality.

The non-farm payroll report released in June was a very weak 69,000 jobs. When you subtract the birth/death (phantom) 200,000 plus jobs added by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics we actually lost close to 150,000 jobs for the month. The birth/death ratio refers not to actual people but businesses the BLS think they might have missed."

Loss of jobs - Daily American (http://articles.dailyamerican.com/2012-08-03/opinion/33025282_1_barack-obama-social-security-jobs)

Let us stop with the adoring and swooning and have a discussion on how to create jobs.....our future depends on it, NOT on the polls for politicians !

[Guest]

I am still amazed by questions such as this last one: "How are jobs created?"

There is only one answer: By the expenditure of investment capital.

Often in US history, there was an abundance of capital expenditure. Virtually everyone who had 'extra' money, especially the wealthy, invested it. In the last century however, there were two exceptions: The Great Depression and the Great Recession. During the Depression, investors lost a lot of money because of poor financial regulation. Jobs only returned when the government funded huge infrastructure projects, which then turned profits for companies, which then stabilized the economy as private investment replaced public investment.

The Great Recession of 2008- is a little different because only a segment of investors lost their fortunes, but again, because of poor financial regulation. Many of those who still retain their fortunes are simply sitting on those investment funds because they are 'afraid', or more likely, just because they can. Why invest when you gain only a little in these low interest times, and, when you could lose it, like some of your peers have? So we have a repeat of the 1930's, and the obvious answer is that the government must jump start the process, once again, by funding large scale infrastructure and R&D projects. The subsequent reemployment of millions will convince private investors to join in with their start ups and expansions. The economy will stabilize. When it does, the government can back off on public investment again and move toward surplus and deficit reduction. If it's too 'scary' to pay for public investment strictly by adding to the deficit, then taxes must be raised. THE MONEY MUST COME FROM SOMEWHERE.

As long as Republicans will not budge on any increase in the deficit or any increase in taxes for anyone, there will be NO NEW JOBS.

What could be more simple.

[Guest]

I am still amazed by questions such as this last one: "How are jobs created?"

There is only one answer: By the expenditure of investment capital.

Often in US history, there was an abundance of capital expenditure. Virtually everyone who had 'extra' money, especially the wealthy, invested it. In the last century however, there were two exceptions: The Great Depression and the Great Recession. During the Depression, investors lost a lot of money because of poor financial regulation. Jobs only returned when the government funded huge infrastructure projects, which then turned profits for companies, which then stabilized the economy as private investment replaced public investment.

The Great Recession of 2008- is a little different because only a segment of investors lost their fortunes, but again, because of poor financial regulation. Many of those who still retain their fortunes are simply sitting on those investment funds because they are 'afraid', or more likely, just because they can. Why invest when you gain only a little in these low interest times, and, when you could lose it, like some of your peers have? So we have a repeat of the 1930's, and the obvious answer is that the government must jump start the process, once again, by funding large scale infrastructure and R&D projects. The subsequent reemployment of millions will convince private investors to join in with their start ups and expansions. The economy will stabilize. When it does, the government can back off on public investment again and move toward surplus and deficit reduction. If it's too 'scary' to pay for public investment strictly by adding to the deficit, then taxes must be raised. THE MONEY MUST COME FROM SOMEWHERE.

As long as Republicans will not budge on any increase in the deficit or any increase in taxes for anyone, there will be NO NEW JOBS.

What could be more simple.


This is not my area of expertise by any stretch but I think what you say is very true but most economists, as I understand them, feel that that time has passed us by. Most I have read feel that should be done at the beginning of a recession to pump liquidity back into the economy and BOTH parties agreed with that if you recall that began even before Obama took office in 2009 in concert with the prior administration.

We can argue HOW that was done and to whom the money went to later.

Most economists that I have read feel that at this point in the recession and we are in really deep do do (do not know if you read the links I posted on the depth of the unemployment in this country),,but anyway, they feel now reduction of the deficit is the big thing because continuation of increasing the deficit is EXTREMELY damaging in the long term.

You mentioned Republicans and I would prefer to stay away from that part.....and just tell you what I have read....we are well beyond stimulating what is wrong in this country.

PS....to your point on being allowed to increase the deficit. In June of this year, the government pulled in the most for any June since 2007 (260 Billion) but spent 320 Billion versus 293 Billion a year ago. I cannot imagine how we can continue on this path. The time for stimulus is past and was blown in my opinion. We will have a deficit of over 1 Trillion by the end of this year, the FOURTH consecutive year. That, and a very serious and disconcerting jobs problem is very discouraging. In my opinion, we need to quickly re work the tax code (that will satisfy the call for the rich guys blood) and do it quickly. MOST IMPORTANT to me is the the next President must get both sides talking. Current President has proved he cannot do that and in fact we are much more polarized than before. Not sure if Romney could do it either frankly, but the current occupant has shown that he cannot. I would love to be optimistic but we have not had this kind of financial woe ever and we continue to promise more and more from the federal government.

[Guest]

This is not my area of expertise by any stretch but I think what you say is very true but most economists, as I understand them, feel that that time has passed us by. Most I have read feel that should be done at the beginning of a recession to pump liquidity back into the economy and BOTH parties agreed with that if you recall that began even before Obama took office in 2009 in concert with the prior administration.

We can argue HOW that was done and to whom the money went to later.

Most economists that I have read feel that at this point in the recession and we are in really deep do do (do not know if you read the links I posted on the depth of the unemployment in this country),,but anyway, they feel now reduction of the deficit is the big thing because continuation of increasing the deficit is EXTREMELY damaging in the long term.

You mentioned Republicans and I would prefer to stay away from that part.....and just tell you what I have read....we are well beyond stimulating what is wrong in this country.

I disagree that we are 'well beyond stimulating what is wrong". Again, my glass is half-full. You are open-minded enough to recognize the absolute necessity of starting the strong stimulus programs under Bush. The economic logic and principles of that are still valid. THE MONEY MUST COME FROM SOMEWHERE. Don't jump down my throat, but the deficit is relative. We have been in worse shape at other times in our history. Look at the impact of the land wars we are finally drawing down from. We can continue as we are with slow job and economic growth and a frozen deficit and taxes as the Republicans have dictated. Yes, the Republicans. But if Obama opponents, including Romney, say this is "disasterous', the ONLY alternative is to unfreeze the deficit and taxes.
I don't think the situation is 'disasterous'. But I do think the human cost of 8% unemployment is a greater negative influence on our collective well-being than whatever negative effects can result from continuing stimulus spending. Of course, I also favor raising most of the stimulus funding through increased taxation, rather than increasing the deficit. You might disagree, and prefer to leave things as they are, accepting the slow but steady recovery we've experienced for at least two years. Maybe that's really a good idea, but if you adopt it you have to stop all the hand-wringing about the President's failures, the unemployment 'disaster' etc.

[Guest]

I disagree that we are 'well beyond stimulating what is wrong". Again, my glass is half-full. You are open-minded enough to recognize the absolute necessity of starting the strong stimulus programs under Bush. The economic logic and principles of that are still valid. THE MONEY MUST COME FROM SOMEWHERE. Don't jump down my throat, but the deficit is relative. We have been in worse shape at other times in our history. Look at the impact of the land wars we are finally drawing down from. We can continue as we are with slow job and economic growth and a frozen deficit and taxes as the Republicans have dictated. Yes, the Republicans. But if Obama opponents, including Romney, say this is "disasterous', the ONLY alternative is to unfreeze the deficit and taxes.
I don't think the situation is 'disasterous'. But I do think the human cost of 8% unemployment is a greater negative influence on our collective well-being than whatever negative effects can result from continuing stimulus spending. Of course, I also favor raising most of the stimulus funding through increased taxation, rather than increasing the deficit. You might disagree, and prefer to leave things as they are, accepting the slow but steady recovery we've experienced for at least two years. Maybe that's really a good idea, but if you adopt it you have to stop all the hand-wringing about the President's failures, the unemployment 'disaster' etc.


I added a PS to my last post which I hope you will read. I noticed this post while I was adding it so I am pretty sure you have not read it.

It is nice to view from a glass half full....but I suppose I am more of a realist. I have not seen the slow and steady recovery you refer to. I hope you will consider reading the depth of our unemployment situation....In my opinion there is a deepening of the recession...while certain aspects of the economy will at times show signs of life.

My hand wringing, again in my opinion, is justified...not because he is Barrack Obama...not because he is a Democrat. He had failed in leadership which is what we need...he continues, and I am assuming you agree based on your post, to think we can continue to spend our way out of this when it did not work the last time and with a deficit that amazingly is now at TRILLIONs, the future looks bleak to me. I sure wish I saw those signs of a slow and steady recovery but I see just the opposite.

I need to go but want to end with a point of agreement, sort of :) We need a complete revision of the tax code and I really was cheering this President on and on loudly when he appointed the blue ribbon committee to look at it and make suggestions. BUT, as always it did not fit into his political plan thus it was pushed aside and ignored. I know you wont agree with my comment on WHY he ignored his own committee and certainly welcome reading your take on that situation, but the tax code needs to be reworked and we need to stop the rich versus poor conversations which are really tearing us all apart. The decisions to be made are difficult for sure.

[Guest]

I added a PS to my last post which I hope you will read. I noticed this post while I was adding it so I am pretty sure you have not read it.

It is nice to view from a glass half full....but I suppose I am more of a realist. I have not seen the slow and steady recovery you refer to. I hope you will consider reading the depth of our unemployment situation....In my opinion there is a deepening of the recession...while certain aspects of the economy will at times show signs of life.

My hand wringing, again in my opinion, is justified...not because he is Barrack Obama...not because he is a Democrat. He had failed in leadership which is what we need...he continues, and I am assuming you agree based on your post, to think we can continue to spend our way out of this when it did not work the last time and with a deficit that amazingly is now at TRILLIONs, the future looks bleak to me. I sure wish I saw those signs of a slow and steady recovery but I see just the opposite.

I need to go but want to end with a point of agreement, sort of :) We need a complete revision of the tax code and I really was cheering this President on and on loudly when he appointed the blue ribbon committee to look at it and make suggestions. BUT, as always it did not fit into his political plan thus it was pushed aside and ignored. I know you wont agree with my comment on WHY he ignored his own committee and certainly welcome reading your take on that situation, but the tax code needs to be reworked and we need to stop the rich versus poor conversations which are really tearing us all apart. The decisions to be made are difficult for sure.

OK, when you get back maybe we can get on an 'agreement' roll. The heck with a blue-ribbon committee. How about if you outline the basic tenets of your suggested revised US tax code? I've listed mine in a previous post and I'd like to see how they compare to yours.

[Guest]

On your 'PS' Bucco:

It's not about Obama's leadership ability. The continued, total Republican block of anything he has proposed is unprecedented in our history.
I am beginning to be intrigued by the idea that, when the election posturing is over, Obama could be more successful as a lame duck than he is now.

[Guest]

----

[Guest]

snip
I am beginning to be intrigued by the idea that, when the election posturing is over, Obama could be more successful as a lame duck than he is now.

isn't that what happened with bill clinton? and didn't he have to sit down with the republican leadership to negotiate and compromise - welfare reform comes to mind. do you think obama could find it in his soul to sit down with the opposition to negotiate and compromise? he might have changed his mind about the emotionally and politically charged issue of gay marriage, but i just can't see that he could evolve to that level.

[Guest]

On your 'PS' Bucco:

It's not about Obama's leadership ability. The continued, total Republican block of anything he has proposed is unprecedented in our history.
I am beginning to be intrigued by the idea that, when the election posturing is over, Obama could be more successful as a lame duck than he is now.

First excuse me if this is not clear as I am not writing in normal conditions right now as my days schedule has been changed:)

Here is where we will differ. First allow me to say and not sure if you agree or not...BOTH parties are just plain terrible in how they handle the nations work...if you are simply honed in on Republicans then we will have a problem. I know of over 30 bills that would create jobs that were passed in the Republican house and table immediately with no discussion or allowing them to be discussed by Harry Reid. I know that Reid also will not allow discussion of a ..to me a no brainer...bill to stop the illegal immigrant scam on our tax money (we are talking Billions) because of the political timing. I also know of the meeting that Obama just walked out of and never ever even called the participants when a bi partisan group met with him to solve economic issues (this was about 2 years ago)...never even called them back just said that is not what I want and left.

Knowing what I just said to be FACTUAL, it will be difficult for me to think of Obama as a leader in anyway...nor to blame simply the Republicans for the stalemate. It seems that those who support Obama simply will discuss ONLY and nothing else but the house, and they probably can make a good case but ignoring the senate is not doing due diligence in anyway at all.

[Guest]

A good read is John Stossel's "No They Can't . Clearly all of this haggling going on about party claims is plain bupkus. Voters need to change their emphasis to one of collaboration making demands from government for smaller government, more emphasis on innovation incentives for the private sector lower taxes, less regulation, etc. This pounding going on between parties is making us all losers.

[Guest]

"but i just can't see that he could evolve to that level."

I thought the conservatve Reactionary Republican did not believe in Evolution. Wasn't the Earth created 5,500 years ago with dinosaurs and Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden together? Oh my, if that isn't true, Sarah Palin would be W R O N G and she never could be wrong about anything.

[Guest]

OK, when you get back maybe we can get on an 'agreement' roll. The heck with a blue-ribbon committee. How about if you outline the basic tenets of your suggested revised US tax code? I've listed mine in a previous post and I'd like to see how they compare to yours.

I did post ONE response to you and hope you will respond to that as that is what makes me what I am in regards to the current administration.

On the tax code, lets start small and simple and first of all allow me to correct myself. I said that Obama did not embrace any of those items in his blue ribbon committee and just read something from April 2011 where he said he was ready to do so, but he never did and thus my distrust of what he says totally !

But....two things they recommended which we can discuss without too much rankle, I think is as follows.

Raise the social security age

Eliminate the home deduction tax break

Also their report advocates a lot of things that will cut well into entitlements of all kinds.

If you need a link to the report, http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

But this is really tough to discuss in this format. I would say that I would really like to see open discussion and this time actually do it...on CSPAN if you will of the leaders of congress and the new President, talking through items that they see as insuring this country can grow and not get caught up in thier own shorts. It will not satisfy either party and both have to give, and again I sure hope you read my other post (POST # 21) and respond.

I think the tax code is screwed up....pretty sure there may have been a sound reason for many of the breaks and taxes applied within the code but once the situation is beyond, nobody corrects the code. This is not something that can be done in one year, or maybe even a term and will require a vast amount of leadership to get it done.

I hope your half full opinion works fine...this is where I get concerned. I am not at all confident that either party can come together and do any of this but I am convinced that without it we are traveling down a road that VERY SOON will spell bad things for us...everyone refers to GREECE and I think it could be even worse than that. We are spending ourselves crazy...

I just am not confident that Obama can become the leader he needs to be...he has shown even less attributes of that that I thought he had in 2008, but on the other hand, I cannot say with any great confidence that Romney is the answer either but I guess I know one and not the other is where I am ending up.

We are at a crossroads in this country...if you read the unemployment information...the stuff beneath the 8.6 percent, it is pretty dire and we continue down the road of the negative stuff instead of standing up and being americans instead of Rep or Dem. I hope your confidence is the correct read.....makes my worries needless but even though needless, the outcome would make me so happy !

[Guest]

Allow me to add to this conversation and perhaps your optimistic views...

Seems that 40 or so senate Dems and Republicans have gotten together and sort of want to "reopen" that committees work.....

"Now, more than 40 Senate Democrats and Republicans have met to discuss the feasibility of using many of those ideas to rewrite the Simpson-Bowles plan and have it ready to offer after the election, in a lame duck session, or early next year. That’s when Congress must address a staggering number of budget and tax issues that, if left unresolved, threaten to jar the economy and possibly push the nation back into a recession."

Read more at Lawmakers Make Yet Another Pitch to Revive Bowles-Simpson (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/07/18/Lawmakers-Make-Yet-Another-Pitch-to-Revive-Bowles-Simpson.aspx#6eh4178mOTxW7XMt.99)

That is good news to me....we are in a serious situation here and looking forward to me has become an exercise in frustration.

Read this article.you will like it...bi partisan and working together...what a concept !!!

[Guest]

Allow me to add to this conversation and perhaps your optimistic views...

Seems that 40 or so senate Dems and Republicans have gotten together and sort of want to "reopen" that committees work.....

"Now, more than 40 Senate Democrats and Republicans have met to discuss the feasibility of using many of those ideas to rewrite the Simpson-Bowles plan and have it ready to offer after the election, in a lame duck session, or early next year. That’s when Congress must address a staggering number of budget and tax issues that, if left unresolved, threaten to jar the economy and possibly push the nation back into a recession."

Read more at Lawmakers Make Yet Another Pitch to Revive Bowles-Simpson (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/07/18/Lawmakers-Make-Yet-Another-Pitch-to-Revive-Bowles-Simpson.aspx#6eh4178mOTxW7XMt.99)

That is good news to me....we are in a serious situation here and looking forward to me has become an exercise in frustration.

Read this article.you will like it...bi partisan and working together...what a concept !!!

I'd like to read that. The link doesn't open the article for me. How old is it?

[Guest]

I'd like to read that. The link doesn't open the article for me. How old is it?

It is from last month,,,,,

Lawmakers Make Yet Another Pitch to Revive Bowles-Simpson (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/07/18/Lawmakers-Make-Yet-Another-Pitch-to-Revive-Bowles-Simpson.aspx#page#6eh4178mOTxW7XMt.99)

Any problems go to FISCAL TIMES (a great link by the way) and search...

The Fiscal Times - Business, Economics, Politics and Finance (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/)

It is under POLICY + POLITICS

Another link you might like...and I am not in love with all of Simpson Bowles but...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2012/07/12/bowles-we-are-going-over-the-fiscal-cliff/

And for those of you who wonder why I am always criticizing the President...

"The Simpson-Bowles plan is a solution to our fiscal problems. It not only reduces our fiscal deficit to 2.2% of GDP, but also is a bi-partisan program that will work when nothing else has.

President Obama must lead the way on this issue. As I’ve recommended before and will do so again, Simpson-Bowles gives America a chance at recovery before we go over the “fiscal cliff” Erskine Bowles has been warning us about."

The Presidency is NOT about polls.....not about being liked...not about great speeches....it is about leadership !! Our President has had a long time to address this...a long time

[Guest]

"but i just can't see that he could evolve to that level."

I thought the conservatve Reactionary Republican did not believe in Evolution. Wasn't the Earth created 5,500 years ago with dinosaurs and Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden together? Oh my, if that isn't true, Sarah Palin would be W R O N G and she never could be wrong about anything.

don't know if they do or not - but you can be sure they don't believe in obama's evolution re gay marriage - it's too obvious that it is just another bogus political stunt.

[Guest]

I would like to ask you what you believe is the difference between a civil marriage ceremony of two straight people (man and woman) and a civil union ceremony between two gay people? Since both have the same intent then both are marriages, aren't they?

Shouldn't both be afforded the exact same legal rights in the unions?

Leave religion out of the equation. That would be up to an individual church to decide if they will do a religious ceremony for gay couples.

The title of this thread is July Jobs Report

This is totally unrelated !

[Guest]

Jobs, jobs, jobs.

[Guest]

Bucco,

I've read your last posts about Obama's leadership and your suggested tax revisions. I think it's futile to comment further on the question of leadership. It is so broad as to be entirely in the eye of the beholder. I will however again mention the survey of university professors who placed Obama 15th most effective of all Presidents. Call them anything less than objective - elitists, leftists, etc., but I give some credence to their 200+ year long view.
On the matter of taxes, I could not agree more that some changes should be made to entitlements, including Social Security. But my plan would reduce benefits by income level. I would not change the home mortgage deduction at the present time.
But would you answer these questions: Would you support across the board reductions in corporate income taxes, the current reductions in payroll taxes, an increase in capital gains taxes and making the Bush tax cuts 'permanent' on incomes of less than 500k? An elimination of farm subsidies except in cases of proven crop failure, elimination of other specific tax breaks to corporations, the initiation of more corporate incentives for research and development, and to hire additional workers, especially veterans, and even larger one-time incentives to return to domestic production?

There's more. But if this thread is still about jobs, please agree with me that the money necessary to create them must come from somewhere.

[Guest]

"but i just can't see that he could evolve to that level."

I thought the conservatve Reactionary Republican did not believe in Evolution. Wasn't the Earth created 5,500 years ago with dinosaurs and Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden together? Oh my, if that isn't true, Sarah Palin would be W R O N G and she never could be wrong about anything.

Finally someone with some real facts. :coolsmiley:

[Guest]

Bucco,

I've read your last posts about Obama's leadership and your suggested tax revisions. I think it's futile to comment further on the question of leadership. It is so broad as to be entirely in the eye of the beholder. I will however again mention the survey of university professors who placed Obama 15th most effective of all Presidents. Call them anything less than objective - elitists, leftists, etc., but I give some credence to their 200+ year long view.
On the matter of taxes, I could not agree more that some changes should be made to entitlements, including Social Security. But my plan would reduce benefits by income level. I would not change the home mortgage deduction at the present time.
But would you answer these questions: Would you support across the board reductions in corporate income taxes, the current reductions in payroll taxes, an increase in capital gains taxes and making the Bush tax cuts 'permanent' on incomes of less than 500k? An elimination of farm subsidies except in cases of proven crop failure, elimination of other specific tax breaks to corporations, the initiation of more corporate incentives for research and development, and to hire additional workers, especially veterans, and even larger one-time incentives to return to domestic production?

There's more. But if this thread is still about jobs, please agree with me that the money necessary to create them must come from somewhere.

First of all, I think you for a discussion without the cutsey names and smart cracks. It is nice to have a discussion, albeit disagree on some points, but have it be civil...very refreshing and adult !

On your last point, sure the money needs to come from somewhere and throughout our history it has come from private corporations and I think it should be that way once again. The core of our entire history is private investment. We surely need government involvement in those that are public works, such as the pipe line, but event here much should come from private enterprise.

Thus, we need tax codes and regulations that will allow that to happen. Our growth should not be dependent on the federal government, but should be the free enterpise system.

On your first point, and it appears we disagree on that, but just one comment. To me, and to I think most, one of our single biggest problems is getting our leaders to work together. This always come from the oval office....that job, President, does not allow you to make laws, does not allow you to do a lot.....what you need to do, in my opinion, is be able to LEAD, ie. TALK..LISTEN....sway after you do those two things...compromise. The senate and the house, believe it or not look to the oval office for that leadership and if we do not get it, we are going nowhere very fast. Our growth and success is NOT dependent on one man..never has been....one man is elected to lead...we do not vote for him to make laws...not his job. That is why I mention leadership and will drop it for now as we obviously disagree.

This will sound like a cop out and maybe it is, but those points you raised are vital and I agree, but I thought we would be well on our way through Simpson Bowles in having thos discussions. They, in my opinion, do not stand alone each issue..they are all related to one another and we need to have a serious and adult conversation among our leaders to accomplish it. We need to provide sufficient revenue but also allow corporations to grow and hopefully create jobs. This conversation needs to happen for sure and I hope you read the hopeful link on the 40 senators that are beginning, hopefully, that process.

Back to leadership once again if you dont mind. The differences that we have now are not new, perhaps taking new forms but the issue differences are always there. We just lost our way in resolving them. We need leadership in the WH to make that happen. This is not an endorsement of Romney by the way because I have no idea if he can do it. He does have a track record to go by as does the incumbent.

Again, thanks so much for the back and forth without the juvenile antics. I am open to being told that you or anyone disagree (frankly, when you are as opinionated as me you better be ready for that), and not only can handle it, but on more occassions that I care to admit, I have had my mind changed, but get totally turned off with the shallow, name calling and ridicule that folks think they must engage in.

You have made me think, read and examine which is the whole idea..thanks

[Guest]

First of all, I think you for a discussion without the cutsey names and smart cracks. It is nice to have a discussion, albeit disagree on some points, but have it be civil...very refreshing and adult !

On your last point, sure the money needs to come from somewhere and throughout our history it has come from private corporations and I think it should be that way once again. The core of our entire history is private investment. We surely need government involvement in those that are public works, such as the pipe line, but event here much should come from private enterprise.

Thus, we need tax codes and regulations that will allow that to happen. Our growth should not be dependent on the federal government, but should be the free enterpise system.

On your first point, and it appears we disagree on that, but just one comment. To me, and to I think most, one of our single biggest problems is getting our leaders to work together. This always come from the oval office....that job, President, does not allow you to make laws, does not allow you to do a lot.....what you need to do, in my opinion, is be able to LEAD, ie. TALK..LISTEN....sway after you do those two things...compromise. The senate and the house, believe it or not look to the oval office for that leadership and if we do not get it, we are going nowhere very fast. Our growth and success is NOT dependent on one man..never has been....one man is elected to lead...we do not vote for him to make laws...not his job. That is why I mention leadership and will drop it for now as we obviously disagree.

This will sound like a cop out and maybe it is, but those points you raised are vital and I agree, but I thought we would be well on our way through Simpson Bowles in having thos discussions. They, in my opinion, do not stand alone each issue..they are all related to one another and we need to have a serious and adult conversation among our leaders to accomplish it. We need to provide sufficient revenue but also allow corporations to grow and hopefully create jobs. This conversation needs to happen for sure and I hope you read the hopeful link on the 40 senators that are beginning, hopefully, that process.

Back to leadership once again if you dont mind. The differences that we have now are not new, perhaps taking new forms but the issue differences are always there. We just lost our way in resolving them. We need leadership in the WH to make that happen. This is not an endorsement of Romney by the way because I have no idea if he can do it. He does have a track record to go by as does the incumbent.

Again, thanks so much for the back and forth without the juvenile antics. I am open to being told that you or anyone disagree (frankly, when you are as opinionated as me you better be ready for that), and not only can handle it, but on more occassions that I care to admit, I have had my mind changed, but get totally turned off with the shallow, name calling and ridicule that folks think they must engage in.

You have made me think, read and examine which is the whole idea..thanks

Hey, we agree again - on the adult discussion part. I'll just add one comment about private enterprise. I believe the two largest single factors in not realizing a substantial economic turnaround are 1) the choice business and private investors are currently making to sit on TRILLIONS, and 2) the continuing pattern of outsourcing jobs and production. Private enterprise is wonderful, and ideally the far greater source of economic growth, but we are confounded by the fact that investors can freely choose not to invest, or to invest overseas. Romneylovers and conservatives revere the sacred job creators while folks like Warren Buffet actually are more correct when they characterize current actions of the job creators as harmful and unpatriotic.

More on taxes later.

[Guest]

creating more job opportunities is good....I do believe we can all agree on that, I think!

Cutting corporate taxes is good? or bad? It depends on some basic information which is normally not given consideration.

How about stating one aspect of reducing corporate taxes, that would result in an increase of tax revenues for the federal government? How about that specific corporate tax rate reduction resulting in many more millions of dollars being spent on manufacturing in America? Again from that same specific reduction in tax rate hundreds of thousands of new jobs in manufacturing would result?

That is the potential that could be realized if the corporate tax rate on earnings from overseas operations were reduced. Instead the rate is sufficiently high enough for American companies to keep up to trillions of dollars over seas and not repatriating any of the earnings.

It has been going on for years. Does it make sense?
Now how many Democrats in Washington will ever stand and be counted to reduce the corporate tax rate on repatriated funds? The past would suggest none or not enough.

Yup it makes much more sense to have as an example a 20% tax rate times nothing yielding nothing to add to the desperately need tax revenues. And again strictly to highlight the same example.....let's REDUCE that tax rate to 10 % (and for those who like to trumpet bigger numbers.....a 50% reduction!!!!!!!!!!!!)....now we could have 10% times hundreds of thousands up to trillions of dollars new tax revenues to add.....hundreds of thousands of dollars to now be spent here in the USA.

Makes sense doesn't it? Of course it does just like all the other issues that could be fixed in the EXISTING tax laws........but just like all the other fraud, cheating, stealing continuing and smart things to do to help fix America being ignored because of politics.......very specifically voter protection....special interest protection, lobbyists protection and most importantly self re-election protection.

By the way this subject may not be of interest to some as it does not require an R or a D to determine if it is OK or not......really....try it.

btk

[Guest]

Hey, we agree again - on the adult discussion part. I'll just add one comment about private enterprise. I believe the two largest single factors in not realizing a substantial economic turnaround are 1) the choice business and private investors are currently making to sit on TRILLIONS, and 2) the continuing pattern of outsourcing jobs and production. Private enterprise is wonderful, and ideally the far greater source of economic growth, but we are confounded by the fact that investors can freely choose not to invest, or to invest overseas. Romneylovers and conservatives revere the sacred job creators while folks like Warren Buffet actually are more correct when they characterize current actions of the job creators as harmful and unpatriotic.

More on taxes later.

Think tax revisions ! A corporation, imagine your own business, will go where ever they can turn the largest profit and will expand when the environment is friendly for that expansion.

Like it or not, you would do the same exact thing if you owned a business...right or wrong..they will not be enticed to grow and create jobs if the Federal Government is going to put the money in. It may not be the perfect solution but it IS how we grew to this point and we cannot afford to do anything except what has served us well in the past.

The outsourcing was made worse by NAFTA....I personally was involved in closing a facility and moving it to Mexico when that happened, and the savings were huge for the corporation I worked for. Again, not saying what is right or wrong but just stating facts. When Clinton did NAFTA I think he really believed we needed to be more global. It still is....corporations will establish growth and hire people in the environment that is the most friendly to them. If you are going to invest, millions or billions, THAT is just a fact and anyone who says they would do it differently is just flat no telling the truth. In our system, they are responsible to the stockholders to turn a profit !

[Guest]

Think tax revisions ! A corporation, imagine your own business, will go where ever they can turn the largest profit and will expand when the environment is friendly for that expansion.

Like it or not, you would do the same exact thing if you owned a business...right or wrong..they will not be enticed to grow and create jobs if the Federal Government is going to put the money in. It may not be the perfect solution but it IS how we grew to this point and we cannot afford to do anything except what has served us well in the past.

The outsourcing was made worse by NAFTA....I personally was involved in closing a facility and moving it to Mexico when that happened, and the savings were huge for the corporation I worked for. Again, not saying what is right or wrong but just stating facts. When Clinton did NAFTA I think he really believed we needed to be more global. It still is....corporations will establish growth and hire people in the environment that is the most friendly to them. If you are going to invest, millions or billions, THAT is just a fact and anyone who says they would do it differently is just flat no telling the truth. In our system, they are responsible to the stockholders to turn a profit !

What did your company pay the Mexican workers compared to US workers?

[Guest]

What did your company pay the Mexican workers compared to US workers?

First to make sure you understand, my company closed two facilities and a number of operations within others. As I recall, the difference with pay was about 25% + (a significant plus in some cases) less in Mexico, however that was not the largest savings. Not an accountant so be gentle....but the biggest savings was with incentives from the community, not the Mexican government now but local communities,, Also, the environmental rules were getting really heavy duty in Illinois and Pennsylvania where they were located. The company faced the situation.....either raise prices and cease to be competitive or make a move like this.

I also have to add. It was a different time and much has changed since then relative to the economics of that kind of move. Also, for my company it worked well logistically because they had facilities in Texas and it saved greatly on transportation costs.

Not a great comparison because of the time, HOWEVER, the general premise is they went to the friendliest environment they could find to satisfy stockholders. Having sat in on many meetings, the decision was made with great turmoil but they had very little in options.

[Guest]

All you Obama guys are drinking a really strong Kool-Aid here being handed out by the lamestream media affiliates of the Democrat Party.

195,000 Fewer Americans Had Jobs in July; 150,000 Dropped Out of Labor Force.

Unemployment hover above 8% for a record 42nd month.

Recovery????.................sheesh!!


195,000 Fewer Americans Had Jobs in July; 150,000 Dropped Out of Labor Force | CNSNews.com (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/195000-fewer-americans-had-jobs-july-150000-dropped-out-labor-force)

Did you build that? Blow to Obama as unemployment rises to 8.3 PER CENT | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183178/Did-build-Blow-Obama-unemployment-rises-8-3-PER-CENT.html)

[Guest]

And richielion Obama's tax proposals will cost this country the loss of an additional 700,000 jobs if the taxes are implemented. Less is more when keep your golf score but I do not believe less works well when you are trying to create more jobs