Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
WALL STREET INSIDER On Latest Obama Jobs Report: ” Absolute Rubbish”
#21
JohnL the died-in-the-wool, 19th century Jeffersonian, Alexis de Tocqueville, Frederich von Hayek, Liberal. The Real Deal Wrote:That is why your Bamster lobbied for their continuation in 2010, and got them extended.
I disagree, John, on December 6, 2010 the Bamster did it for a compromise.
Please Note:
  • Extending the 2001/2003 income tax rates for two years. Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase. These measures are intended to provide relief to more than 100 million middle-class families and prevent an annual tax increase of over $2,000 for the typical family.[39]
  • Additional provisions designed to promote economic growth. $56 billion in unemployment insurance, an approximate $120 billion payroll tax cut for working families, about $40 billion in tax cuts for the hardest hit families and students, and 100 percent expensing for businesses during 2011.[39][40]
  • Estate tax adjustment. Rates would be 35 percent after a $5 million exemption.[40][41]
LINK
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#22
What ever,..................he did it , right? I believer what you are doing is more than bloviating. You're quibbling like an old woman. S6S13
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#23
(10-07-2012, 08:54 PM)Grizzly Wrote: ... Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase ...

Oh ... really? ...
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#24
(10-08-2012, 09:29 PM)mr_yak Wrote:
(10-07-2012, 08:54 PM)Grizzly Wrote: ... Also, reforming the AMT to ensure an additional 21 million households will not face a tax increase ...

Oh ... really? ...

Say it ain't so Joe!?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#25
John, you are as much living in La-La Land as is Grizz, if you equate me as a card-carrying Republican. As I've said until I am blue-in-the-face, it is all about the issues. The party is way down in the equation. The one thing that differs with us is that I am far more logical than you, and have figured out what it takes for my issues to succeed. I know that anyone who votes against collectivists and Leftists are my allies.

I also know my history - and recognize that third parties are only useful for diluting the vote of whichever party is closest to them in values and the support of issues. Voting for third parties has more to do with allowing the other side to win, than in helping my issues.

I see the GOP as necessary at this point in time to bring about the needed sea change to block the collectivist Juggernaut. I also see the way to change the party to better serve my issues, is by working with grass roots candidates who see things my way and getting them into office.

Yes, I can argue for GOP victories, but I can also argue the sentiment held by Third Party candidates, what they stand for - and why they are ego-maniacs willing to sabotage their own issues to win personal power. If Stoessel was running, and could win, I would vote him in, in a flash, knowing he would vote for my issues - the trick is "if he could win."
Reply
#26
John: that Forbes article is not only written by Daniel J. Mitchell, who as far as I'm concerned is as conservative as you can get, but also the article is quite misleading in nature, yet most people would never see the key words written throughout. Note:

Quote: ...In other words, the administration’s class-warfare rhetoric is probably just cover for a tax hike that actually will hit a lot of people with far more modest incomes...
The word probably means likely true--not fact.

Quote:...The New York Times, to its credit, provides a fair description of the issue (including a much-needed acknowledgement that Warren Buffett may not have been honest and/or accurate), and also suggests that Obama may be proposing to replace the existing AMT with this new version (though that presumably would negate its impact as a revenue-raiser)...
Fair--meaning not well defined; needs more facts. May not and may be--means might be or not. And suggests means implied.

Quote:...What makes Obama’s new scheme so destructive is that it would (though the White House has not explained the details) somehow classify dividends and capital gains as “preference” items – even though everyone acknowledges that such income already is double taxed!...
Somehow?!!! Mr. Mitchell claims he knows the details about something that he claims unexplained, but he is going to give his readers a somehow anyway? Isn't that nice of Mr. Mitchell.

Blah! Blah! Right Wing Media bamboozle! S19
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#27
(10-09-2012, 06:04 PM)WmLambert Wrote: John, you are as much living in La-La Land as is Grizz, if you equate me as a card-carrying Republican. As I've said until I am blue-in-the-face, it is all about the issues. The party is way down in the equation. The one thing that differs with us is that I am far more logical than you, and have figured out what it takes for my issues to succeed. I know that anyone who votes against collectivists and Leftists are my allies.

I also know my history - and recognize that third parties are only useful for diluting the vote of whichever party is closest to them in values and the support of issues. Voting for third parties has more to do with allowing the other side to win, than in helping my issues.

I see the GOP as necessary at this point in time to bring about the needed sea change to block the collectivist Juggernaut. I also see the way to change the party to better serve my issues, is by working with grass roots candidates who see things my way and getting them into office.

Yes, I can argue for GOP victories, but I can also argue the sentiment held by Third Party candidates, what they stand for - and why they are ego-maniacs willing to sabotage their own issues to win personal power. If Stoessel was running, and could win, I would vote him in, in a flash, knowing he would vote for my issues - the trick is "if he could win."
Bill: don't be fooled. John is doing the same thing you are--at least in a way. His true purpose is to get leftists in here to either get them to change from Democrat to voting Republican (Although I believe that he doesn't like Republicans, but he likes the idea of less collectivism, so he will live with it.) or voting a third party--which you already explained quite well, which means throwing away your vote. Either way win-win. S5
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#28
Grizz,

Tell me again about how a President whose budget was rejected by 0-414 in the House and whose Senate hasn't passed a budget bill in over three years (including the time when his party controlled the entire legislative branch) managed to 'fix' AMT. Explain to me how even if your guy is elected that my taxes aren't going up along with everybody else's in Jan. 2013 ... if the President was serious about reform, is there a reason why he really couldn't get around to it in four years? ... including the time he and his party completely controlled the federal government? What he want's to do ... what he has actually done ... and what he is capable of getting done ... these seem like very separate things.

If Barack Obama really wanted to be President, doesn't he realize that he could actually be doing that particular job right now?
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#29
(10-09-2012, 06:04 PM)WmLambert Wrote: John, you are as much living in La-La Land as is Grizz, if you equate me as a card-carrying Republican. As I've said until I am blue-in-the-face, it is all about the issues. The party is way down in the equation. The one thing that differs with us is that I am far more logical than you, and have figured out what it takes for my issues to succeed. I know that anyone who votes against collectivists and Leftists are my allies.

S13 Looks like hubris is alive and well here.

What was that joke about 'opinions'?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#30
Hubris means thinking my ideas are better than yours, which I don't. We believe the same things. My logic is in understanding history and what the strategy is that is being used, and how best to counter it.

You understand history, but plant your feet at third party exploitation by the Left, and accept their strategy as harmless. I don't, that's all.
Reply
#31
(10-10-2012, 01:07 AM)WmLambert Wrote: Hubris means thinking my ideas are better than yours, which I don't. We believe the same things. My logic is in understanding history and what the strategy is that is being used, and how best to counter it.

You understand history, but plant your feet at third party exploitation by the Left, and accept their strategy as harmless. I don't, that's all.

You do a magnificent job of making my point. Congratulations Bill. And of course you are beyond being able to see that. But that's ok, I understand the problem completely. S5
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#32
Meanwhile, and this is for the Grizz, that bumbling, dishonest, and foolish, Jack Welch is almost certainly going to have the last laugh, or whatever it should be called: Jack Welch: I Was Right About That Strange Jobs Report.

Quote:By JACK WELCH

Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel "embarrassed" and labeling you a fool, or worse.

Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8% unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week is downright implausible. And that's why I made a stink about it.

Before I explain why the number is questionable, though, a few words about where I'm coming from. Contrary to some of the sound-and-fury last week, I do not work for the Mitt Romney campaign. I am definitely not a surrogate. My wife, Suzy, is not associated with the campaign, either. She worked at Bain Consulting (not Bain Capital) right after business school, in 1988 and 1989, and had no contact with Mr. Romney.

The Obama campaign and its supporters, including bigwigs like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, along with several cable TV anchors, would like you to believe that BLS data are handled like the gold in Fort Knox, with gun-carrying guards watching their every move, and highly trained, white-gloved super-agents counting and recounting hourly.

Let's get real. The unemployment data reported each month are gathered over a one-week period by census workers, by phone in 70% of the cases, and the rest through home visits. In sum, they try to contact 60,000 households, asking a list of questions and recording the responses.

Some questions allow for unambiguous answers, but others less so. For instance, the range for part-time work falls between one hour and 34 hours a week. So, if an out-of-work accountant tells a census worker, "I got one baby-sitting job this week just to cover my kid's bus fare, but I haven't been able to find anything else," that could be recorded as being employed part-time.

The possibility of subjectivity creeping into the process is so pervasive that the BLS's own "Handbook of Methods" has a full page explaining the limitations of its data, including how non-sampling errors get made, from "misinterpretation of the questions" to "errors made in the estimations of missing data."

Bottom line: To suggest that the input to the BLS data-collection system is precise and bias-free is—well, let's just say, overstated.

Even if the BLS had a perfect process, the context surrounding the 7.8% figure still bears serious skepticism. Consider the following:

In August, the labor-force participation rate in the U.S. dropped to 63.5%, the lowest since September 1981. By definition, fewer people in the workforce leads to better unemployment numbers. That's why the unemployment rate dropped to 8.1% in August from 8.3% in July.

Meanwhile, we're told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.

These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%.

I know I'm not the only person hearing these numbers and saying, "Really? If all that's true, why are so many people I know still having such a hard time finding work? Why do I keep hearing about local, state and federal cutbacks?"

I sat through business reviews of a dozen companies last week as part of my work in the private sector, and not one reported better results in the third quarter compared with the second quarter. Several stayed about the same, the rest were down slightly.

The economy is not in a free-fall. Oil and gas are strong, automotive is doing well and we seem to be seeing the beginning of a housing comeback. But I doubt many of us know any businessperson who believes the economy is growing at breakneck speed, as it would have to be for unemployment to drop to 7.8% from 8.3% over the course of two months.

The reality is the economy is experiencing a weak recovery. Everything points to that, particularly the overall employment level, which is 143 million people today, compared with 146 million people in 2007.

Now, I realize my tweets about this matter have been somewhat incendiary. In my first tweet, sent the night before the unemployment figure was released, I wrote: "Tomorrow unemployment numbers for Sept. with all the assumptions Labor Department can make..wonder about participation assumption??" The response was a big yawn.

My next tweet, on Oct. 5, the one that got the attention of the Obama campaign and its supporters, read: "Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers."

As I said that same evening in an interview on CNN, if I could write that tweet again, I would have added a few question marks at the end, as with my earlier tweet, to make it clear I was raising a question.

But I'm not sorry for the heated debate that ensued. I'm not the first person to question government numbers, and hopefully I won't be the last. Take, for example, one of my chief critics in this go-round, Austan Goolsbee, former chairman of the Obama administration's Council of Economic Advisers. Back in 2003, Mr. Goolsbee himself, commenting on a Bush-era unemployment figure, wrote in a New York Times op-ed: "the government has cooked the books."

The good news is that the current debate has resulted in people giving the whole issue of unemployment data more thought. Moreover, it led to some of the campaign's biggest supporters admitting that the number merited a closer look—and even expressing skepticism. The New York Times in a Sunday editorial, for instance, acknowledged the 7.8% figure is "partly due to a statistical fluke."

The coming election is too important to be decided on a number. Especially when that number seems so wrong.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply
#33
(10-10-2012, 09:50 AM)John L Wrote: ...You do a magnificent job of making my point. Congratulations Bill. And of course you are beyond being able to see that. But that's ok, I understand the problem completely. S5
Then you will change your incorrect preconceived notions of the harmlessness or even advantage of third party support while there is a monster on the verge of being elected who will end all hopes of our issues ever coming through? It is not your individual vote from a state that votes in Romney - it is your influence over members and non-members of this forum whose votes might make all the difference. Your sole difference with me is that you not only talk up what should be changed in the party necessary to defeat Obama and create the needed sea change in the Senate (as I do) - but that you denigrate the entire party needed to drum up enthusiasm and support by calling all of them names rather than understanding there are good and bad in there, and we must be supporting the good ones in order to replace the bad ones.

Every time there is an action caused by the bad ones - you leap to the offense of those who weren't able to change it ... yet.

Reference point: During Clinton's abysmal Presidency, he was impeached, but the media and Democrats were able to stave off his removal from office. That was party politics. However during that same time, Clinton's power grab via Executive Order 13083 was little known until Laura Ingraham, and a few other policy wonks who understand the process, made it a national cause, for which millions of outraged citizens, of all cloth, called their representatives on the Hill and put pressure on them to repeal the Executive Order. It was not the party - it was the enthusiasm that held off then what Obama is getting through today.

It is all about the enthusiasm and the hope of future improvement within the power structure in Washington. It isn't about who is setting policy now. I, and people like me, will change the outcomes by changing the power structure - but retaining the power it holds. There is no other way to combat the other side who has only one goal - power. Issues for them is secondary. To me, issues are primary.

As an athletic coach, I researched how to positively influence those I needed to instruct. It isn't about negativism - but by identifying the points from which they can build a positive approach. Negativism only serves to vent the spleen of those who rationalize it - and holds back the positive reform. I'm trying to do it right, and hope to garner your help in doing it. The objective is to win - not just to feel good while losing.
Reply
#34
JohnL Wrote:Meanwhile, and this is for the Grizz, that bumbling, dishonest, and foolish, Jack Welch is almost certainly going to have the last laugh, or whatever it should be called: Jack Welch: I Was Right About That Strange Jobs Report.
If Jack Welch is right, I would like to Thank him for proving my point about why the rich should not get these tax cuts they cry repeatedly about. The private sector just wants to save money, Jack; they don't want to create jobs, that's why.S22 S6

Jack Welch Wrote:Meanwhile, we're told in the BLS report that in the months of August and September, federal, state and local governments added 602,000 workers to their payrolls, the largest two-month increase in more than 20 years. And the BLS tells us that, overall, 873,000 workers were added in September, the largest one-month increase since 1983, during the booming Reagan recovery.

These three statistics—the labor-force participation rate, the growth in government workers, and overall job growth, all multidecade records achieved over the past two months—have to raise some eyebrows. There were no economists, liberal or conservative, predicting that unemployment in September would drop below 8%.

Jack Welch Wrote:I know I'm not the only person hearing these numbers and saying, "Really? If all that's true, why are so many people I know still having such a hard time finding work?
Because you folks do not want to supply jobs, Jack. It's a shame that people have to use government to make jobs--especially after all of those years of tax cuts that people like you have been getting. S17
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#35
You seem to have a disconnect from reality. A homeless guy or a wealthy tycoon will both do what they think is the best thing at the time out of the limited choices available. There is no magic wand that changes human nature.

Jobs are a by-product of making a profit. Given the alternatives of no profit - but a push - where a company owner can keep people employed and his company viable, that owner will do so if there is profit looming down the road, even if there is no profit at the moment, but just enough to keep things above water.

It is not the owner who decides to shave corners to stay viable - it is the result of the market. In a good economy, jobs grow and salaries increase. There is no morality to create jobs other than to earn profit. If ten people can do the job of twenty, then ten people should lose their jobs. If companies grow and expand, more people are hired to work for it. It is a dynamic process, and employment is not the means to an end - it is the result of success.
Reply
#36
(10-10-2012, 07:38 PM)WmLambert Wrote: You seem to have a disconnect from reality. A homeless guy or a wealthy tycoon will both do what they think is the best thing at the time out of the limited choices available. There is no magic wand that changes human nature.

Jobs are a by-product of making a profit. Given the alternatives of no profit - but a push - where a company owner can keep people employed and his company viable, that owner will do so if there is profit looming down the road, even if there is no profit at the moment, but just enough to keep things above water.

It is not the owner who decides to shave corners to stay viable - it is the result of the market. In a good economy, jobs grow and salaries increase. There is no morality to create jobs other than to earn profit. If ten people can do the job of twenty, then ten people should lose their jobs. If companies grow and expand, more people are hired to work for it. It is a dynamic process, and employment is not the means to an end - it is the result of success.
You too, must be in a quandary over reality than. It's not the people's fault that the market is in a bad way. There's no reason to keep those tax cuts in place because bills still need to be paid--just like everyone else has to do every year.
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#37
(10-10-2012, 07:53 PM)Grizzly Wrote: ...There's no reason to keep those tax cuts in place because bills still need to be paid--just like everyone else has to do every year.
That is the best reason to cut taxes. There is zero history that says high taxes increase tax receipts, in fact, doing so decreases them. You have to decide what is important to you: punishing the wealthy for being successful, or raising revenue to pay for government over-spending. They are two different things.
Reply
#38
(10-10-2012, 07:53 PM)Grizzly Wrote: There's no reason to keep those tax cuts in place because bills still need to be paid--just like everyone else has to do every year.

Now in addition to NOT 'explaining' how Obama 'fixed' it ... it seems like you've contradicted yourself. How could Obama have possibly have 'fixed' anything if people making $20K next year will be taking a (perceived) $400 wage cut?

I'm "everybody else" too Grizz ... and I'm actually trying to plan for this. I mentioned it to my wife as we set up something really unusual called a b-u-d-g-e-t ... and she was shocked when I suggested we may have to forgo a vacation that we've already sunk deposits into. We're very lucky. Some folks will be giving up much more than a simple frolic. I mentioned it to a colleague at work and he frankly thought I was full of sh*t. You have to believe two things to believe it will get 'fixed' ...

1. The House and Senate are gonna start hugg'in and kiss'in on the morning of Nov. 7th.

2. Neither side has a spine.

I can take #2 at face value (what an odd sounding phrase S13 ) ... but #1 is another matter.

If Romney is elected it will not be his 'fault' ... as HE didn't sign the legislation that put us on this path. If Obama is elected ... well? Not so much. In that regard, it's largely irrelevant to the election ... but to the future? ... not so much. A 'real' leader would tend to 'lead'.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
-- Henry Mencken
Reply
#39
(10-10-2012, 08:47 PM)mr_yak Wrote:
(10-10-2012, 07:53 PM)Grizzly Wrote: There's no reason to keep those tax cuts in place because bills still need to be paid--just like everyone else has to do every year.

Now in addition to NOT 'explaining' how Obama 'fixed' it ... it seems like you've contradicted yourself. How could Obama have possibly have 'fixed' anything if people making $20K next year will be taking a (perceived) $400 wage cut?

I'm "everybody else" too Grizz ... and I'm actually trying to plan for this. I mentioned it to my wife as we set up something really unusual called a b-u-d-g-e-t ... and she was shocked when I suggested we may have to forgo a vacation that we've already sunk deposits into. We're very lucky. Some folks will be giving up much more than a simple frolic. I mentioned it to a colleague at work and he frankly thought I was full of sh*t. You have to believe two things to believe it will get 'fixed' ...

1. The House and Senate are gonna start hugg'in and kiss'in on the morning of Nov. 7th.

2. Neither side has a spine.

I can take #2 at face value (what an odd sounding phrase S13 ) ... but #1 is another matter.

If Romney is elected it will not be his 'fault' ... as HE didn't sign the legislation that put us on this path. If Obama is elected ... well? Not so much. In that regard, it's largely irrelevant to the election ... but to the future? ... not so much. A 'real' leader would tend to 'lead'.
You're too excited. Give it time. Besides, don't the pachyderms have the House? Give them a call. Oh, that's right. They're too busy with the election. S23
"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations." `Thomas Jefferson

Reply
#40
Grizz, I consider myself fairly astute, and had I defended the Jobs report earlier, I would never appear on the same thread again, after having been proven so wrong. And especially now that we know one state was missing from the report: It Looks Like The Huge Drop In Jobless Claims Was All Due To One Mystery State.

And can you guess which 'mystery state' was the one? Take a guess, and if you think it is anything other than California, You Lose!!!!
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Have a Gneiss Day!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Obama's jobs Plan/speech:How it compares with facts John L 60 21,455 09-24-2011, 05:06 PM
Last Post: jt
  Obama Boosts Productivity, Creates Jobs, Helps Retailers Fredledingue 12 2,831 01-12-2010, 12:08 AM
Last Post: WmLambert
  AIG Nationalized - Wall Street crisis continues... mcabromb 76 13,618 03-03-2009, 07:58 PM
Last Post: Fredledingue
  Wall Street fears for next Great Depression scpg02 15 2,802 05-14-2008, 06:40 PM
Last Post: jt
  Jobs created vs jobs lost KenRI 16 7,826 01-14-2007, 11:18 AM
Last Post: John L

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)