Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, if an increase of 2.16 million in (private) payroll in eighteen months is a failure, what do you call a decrease of 673K over eight years?
Did you figure in the 21%+ decrease in the value of the dollar since 2008 in your figures? Are you including those who are long term unemployed, have given up, or are under-employed?
wow yet another poll that is as partisan as it can get.
What I believe is that the FED is bloated and is not the best investment of our tax dollars. I believe that the FED/ civil service jobs are a poor investment and the process is less then efficient.Do I believe that spending billions or trillions will creat jobs? Sure but at what cost ? For every dollar earned how many spent to get that 1 dollar? From what we have seen so far its been a very bad investment.
The company making the signs made out pretty good tho. Paid fooor by the bailout.
In general, until Obama is gone, none of business or job makers will come back to make anything go. His policies and hatred of capable people don't make businesses and doers trust him. In fact I hear they fear doing anything until he is out of office.
Heard that on Fox news did you? Or did El Rushbo tell you?
Did you figure in the 21%+ decrease in the value of the dollar since 2008 in your figures? Are you including those who are long term unemployed, have given up, or are under-employed?
BLS numbers, you know the kind I've seen you use and "discuss". But if you want to make a case with value of dollar, why not start from 2001, to be able to use all of the data provided?
Before 2008...
BLS numbers, you know the kind I've seen you use and "discuss". But if you want to make a case with value of dollar, why not start from 2001, to be able to use all of the data provided?
Because that takes the discussion off the thread topic further. I changed my link from the blogspot above to the NYPost article it refers to. I doubt you took the time to read it.
We have to cut spending and we have to reduce our debt. We have to shrink the size and scope of government; and yes, that will cost federal jobs. Obama has significantly increased the number and payscale of federal jobs during his term and the American taxpayer cannot afford that bill.
Smart cuts, as others have stated will help. Throwing more spending at the problem will not.
Because that takes the discussion off the thread topic further. I changed my link from the blogspot above to the NYPost article it refers to. I doubt you took the time to read it.
Something you would prefer to avoid? BTW, since you spoke of US dollar and its value, I went ahead and posted the solid signs of its strength we had before 2008.
It has nothing to do with creating jobs. The current GOP is a very single minded, monolithic entity, seemingly controlled by Grover Norquist at this juncture.
It's like a retarded parrot. Bush cut taxes, jobs were lost during his tenure. Trickle down is a buch of garbage, yet they keep selling this nonsense, and middle class boobs (apparently many on this board) keep buying it, hook, line, and sinker.
I think you are smart enough to know that no single economic event or policy produced our current economic conditions. So Bush's tax cuts didn't per se cause the loss of jobs you cite unless you want to claim that the subprime mortgage crisis resulted from Bush's tax cuts.
It is also funny that you criticize trickle down - yet don't view government spending as just another version of trickle down.
Direct from his mouth. Cutting government spending will create jobs.
So if president Obama signs a bill cutting 20 trillion over 10 years tomorrow, will we see a continuous decline in unemployment over the next few years?
That would be 20 trillion in our pockets. But that's just a hypothetical.
It assumes that that 20 trillion stays in circulation over here, and that it doesn't end up in China, which is probably where it will end up.
So no I don't think it will create jobs over here. But it is a start.
I think you are smart enough to know that no single economic event or policy produced our current economic conditions. So Bush's tax cuts didn't per se cause the loss of jobs you cite unless you want to claim that the subprime mortgage crisis resulted from Bush's tax cuts.
One more time, subprime lending didn't lead to the "crisis", irresponsible lending, zero accountability, free reign, increased leveraging power to the financial giants (you know who)... besides, if I had millions "safe" from taxes, I would have spent on such "investments" and multiplied them as well... think none of them could happen, right?
Oh yeah, how was the job growth during the boom time? For that matter, what exactly would you call a boom time in the 2000s... the period you accuse subprime lending to lead us into?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
