GOP Gets Their Wish - Unemployment is Up

[Warrior102]

Boehner had his face on the air today trying to blame the president on this, which is pretty ironic since Boehner was one the GOP'ers back in December claiming that the tax cut bill the Republicans wanted (and got) would end the uncertainty that was keeping businesses from hiring.

that was 6 months ago. Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?

Where are the jobs Mr. Boehner?

Jesus Christ, idiot.

Shall I post the You Tube vid of your beloved Obama during his campaign regarding how many jobs he - OBAMA - was going to produce if elected? Or are you capable of finding it yourself - Cleatus?

Pull you nose out of Obama's ass for a moment and suck on some oxygen, vs. Obama's orifice.

What an idiot.

 

[Political Junky]

Shameless

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9L9DAL__Kk&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - ‪Bachmann Hopes Higher Unemployment Helps Her Campaign‬‏[/ame]

 

[Flopper]

What people fail to realize is government spending is a major component of GDP. GDP is about 14.2 trillion. The federal government spending makes up 3.8 trillion. State governments are spending about 1.3 trillion. What this means is that government spending accounts 36% of our gross domestic product. After you include local government the figure is 41% of GDP.

You can not seriously reduce government spending without further depressing the economy. It may prove beneficial in the long term but in the short term it means another recession which will further reduce government revenue which will increase the deficit, not a pretty picture.

United States Government Current Spending Analysis - Federal State Local

Dear? Government spending is not financed by leprechauns hauling pots of gold, it comes from otherwise productive people in the private sector.

Less government spending would mean more money for the private sector to expand.

Less government spending will mean more money for the private sector to expand only when taxes are reduced and that is not a certainty. Massive cuts in government spending will result in layoffs, contract cancellations, and reduced subsidies. The effects on the economy are sure and immediate. Tax cuts on the other hand are neither. Supply side theory dictates that removing taxes as an impediment to investment will result in economic expansion, however this is just an economic theory. You don't need an economy theory to tell you exactly what will happen to the economy with massive layoffs, contract cancellations, and cuts in subsidies.

Investments from tax cuts may or may not lead to significant American job growth. If economic prospects are better overseas, that's where a lot of the money will go. If economic prospects are judged to be poor at home, investors will take a defensive position parking money in treasuries, bank accounts, precious metals, collectibles and other assets that do little to increase jobs.

IMHO, low tax rates, which is what we have now for individuals do promote economic expansion over the long term, but are not that reliable as a stimulus.

I think there are a lot of changes that need to be made in the tax code that will stimulate job growth. Corporate taxes are too high and there are too many loopholes that encourage overseas job growth. The capital gains tax needs to be reworked. Capital gains on collectibles and precious metals should be your normal tax rate. These investments do little to stimulate the economy and nothing to create jobs. Gains from investments abroad should be treated as ordinary income. Capital gains on small business stocks should be reduced as should capital gains on new business start-ups.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Your own link paints a very different picture. It states that even with those 39,000 public jobs lost, the employment situation as a whole remained largely unchanged. And that many private businesses are continuing to hire more people, although more slowly than we may hope for.

So in summary, the report is essentially saying that employment made a small move from public to private. That's the best news I've heard all day. We get smaller government and employment remains largely unchanged.

Then you should be pretty happy about the other part of the report, right? The part that says that wages declined. That should be cause for celebration too as now businesses are less expensive to operate. You're happy about that right?

No I'm not, but that's a debate for another thread as it has nothing to do with a small loss in public sector jobs. I'm happy that less people are dependent on their government to survive.

 

[Conservative]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Congratulations to all of you who want smaller government! 39,000 jobs were shed in June. Of course, private businesses only added 57,000 jobs, so the unemployment rate went up, but that's what smaller government looks like!

So again, Congratulations!

Hmmm....so our advocating smaller government is so distressing that it causes job loss even in the middle of unmitigated government growth.

Unmitigated government growth? You're aware spending at the Federal level dropped in 2010. You know this, right?

Well, I'm sure you do. You probably also know that states across the country are cutting spending and laying people off, hence the drop in government jobs. Which is what many on these boards want. So why are they not happy about it?

Really?

Interesting... they must be lying to us at USGOVERNMENTSPENDING.COM then...

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local 2011 - Charts Tables History
Total Federal spending in 2010: 3.5 trillion
Total Federal Spending in 2011: 3.8 trillion.

Unless you use some new kind of Democratic math I am unfamiliar with, 3.8 trillion is , well, higher, than 3.5 trillion.

 

[edthecynic]

We want more people working. That's why we support lower taxes, less regulation, and less government spending. Because then more people will be working and producing wealth.

But not now!

November 5, 2008
RUSH: I hope all your Joe the Plumbers are unemployed in six months! There.

October 31, 2008
RUSH: Joe the Plumber. Now, Joe the Plumber is an average citizen

 

[Rozman]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Congratulations to all of you who want smaller government! 39,000 jobs were shed in June. Of course, private businesses only added 57,000 jobs, so the unemployment rate went up, but that's what smaller government looks like!

So again, Congratulations!

I thought The Obama is on record as creating hundreds of thousands of jobs every month for the last 30 months....as least he says that every month...

What a joke.Another bad jobs report where the WH will turn around and say it's another positive jobs creation thanks to the chosen one.

 

[edthecynic]

Hmmm....so our advocating smaller government is so distressing that it causes job loss even in the middle of unmitigated government growth.

Unmitigated government growth? You're aware spending at the Federal level dropped in 2010. You know this, right?

Well, I'm sure you do. You probably also know that states across the country are cutting spending and laying people off, hence the drop in government jobs. Which is what many on these boards want. So why are they not happy about it?

Really?

Interesting... they must be lying to us at USGOVERNMENTSPENDING.COM then...

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local 2011 - Charts Tables History
Total Federal spending in 2010: 3.5 trillion
Total Federal Spending in 2011: 3.8 trillion.

Unless you use some new kind of Democratic math I am unfamiliar with, 3.8 trillion is , well, higher, than 3.5 trillion.

Unless you are using some new kind of GOP calendar I am unfamiliar with, 2010 comes after 2009 not 2011.
$3.456 trillion is LESS than $3.518 trillion.

From your own link:

 

[Trajan]

What people fail to realize is government spending is a major component of GDP. GDP is about 14.2 trillion. The federal government spending makes up 3.8 trillion. State governments are spending about 1.3 trillion. What this means is that government spending accounts 36% of our gross domestic product. After you include local government the figure is 41% of GDP.

You can not seriously reduce government spending without further depressing the economy. It may prove beneficial in the long term but in the short term it means another recession which will further reduce government revenue which will increase the deficit, not a pretty picture.

United States Government Current Spending Analysis - Federal State Local

Dear? Government spending is not financed by leprechauns hauling pots of gold, it comes from otherwise productive people in the private sector.

Less government spending would mean more money for the private sector to expand.

Less government spending will mean more money for the private sector to expand only when taxes are reduced and that is not a certainty. Massive cuts in government spending will result in layoffs, contract cancellations, and reduced subsidies. The effects on the economy are sure and immediate. Tax cuts on the other hand are neither. Supply side theory dictates that removing taxes as an impediment to investment will result in economic expansion, however this is just an economic theory. You don't need an economy theory to tell you exactly what will happen to the economy with massive layoffs, contract cancellations, and cuts in subsidies.

Investments from tax cuts may or may not lead to significant American job growth. If economic prospects are better overseas, that's where a lot of the money will go. If economic prospects are judged to be poor at home, investors will take a defensive position parking money in treasuries, bank accounts, precious metals, collectibles and other assets that do little to increase jobs.

IMHO, low tax rates, which is what we have now for individuals do promote economic expansion over the long term, but are not that reliable as a stimulus.

I think there are a lot of changes that need to be made in the tax code that will stimulate job growth. Corporate taxes are too high and there are too many loopholes that encourage overseas job growth. The capital gains tax needs to be reworked. Capital gains on collectibles and precious metals should be your normal tax rate. These investments do little to stimulate the economy and nothing to create jobs. Gains from investments abroad should be treated as ordinary income. Capital gains on small business stocks should be reduced as should capital gains on new business start-ups.

I think If I read your post right you feel we are on the cusp of either doing to much to to little?

I agree that ALL gov. spending need not stop and it would have a bad effect if it did, the thing is, do we trust them to find the right mix? OI, have no faith at this point in ANY of them.....we are sitting here, 'losing our religion'

 

[Conservative]

Unmitigated government growth? You're aware spending at the Federal level dropped in 2010. You know this, right?

Well, I'm sure you do. You probably also know that states across the country are cutting spending and laying people off, hence the drop in government jobs. Which is what many on these boards want. So why are they not happy about it?

Really?

Interesting... they must be lying to us at USGOVERNMENTSPENDING.COM then...

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local 2011 - Charts Tables History
Total Federal spending in 2010: 3.5 trillion
Total Federal Spending in 2011: 3.8 trillion.

Unless you use some new kind of Democratic math I am unfamiliar with, 3.8 trillion is , well, higher, than 3.5 trillion.

Unless you are using some new kind of GOP calendar I am unfamiliar with, 2010 comes after 2009 not 2011.
$3.456 trillion is LESS than $3.518 trillion.

From your own link:

A... apologies... I thought it said dropped in 2011, not 2010.

B... No need to be a dick.

C... I looked at the listed figure, not the pie charts

D... spending in 2011 IS up over 2010 and 2009.

E... Did I mention, no need to be a dick... Yes, I see I did.

 

[edthecynic]

Really?

Interesting... they must be lying to us at USGOVERNMENTSPENDING.COM then...

Government Spending in United States: Federal State Local 2011 - Charts Tables History
Total Federal spending in 2010: 3.5 trillion
Total Federal Spending in 2011: 3.8 trillion.

Unless you use some new kind of Democratic math I am unfamiliar with, 3.8 trillion is , well, higher, than 3.5 trillion.

Unless you are using some new kind of GOP calendar I am unfamiliar with, 2010 comes after 2009 not 2011.
$3.456 trillion is LESS than $3.518 trillion.

From your own link:

A... apologies... I thought it said dropped in 2011, not 2010.

B... No need to be a dick.

C... I looked at the listed figure, not the pie charts

D... spending in 2011 IS up over 2010 and 2009.

E... Did I mention, no need to be a dick... Yes, I see I did.

Sorry, I forgot CON$ can be DICKS and spew their condescension with that Dem math shit, but no one can dick them back.
I'll remember the double standard next time.

 

[Conservative]

Unless you are using some new kind of GOP calendar I am unfamiliar with, 2010 comes after 2009 not 2011.
$3.456 trillion is LESS than $3.518 trillion.

From your own link:

A... apologies... I thought it said dropped in 2011, not 2010.

B... No need to be a dick.

C... I looked at the listed figure, not the pie charts

D... spending in 2011 IS up over 2010 and 2009.

E... Did I mention, no need to be a dick... Yes, I see I did.

Sorry, I forgot CON$ can be DICKS and spew their condescension with that Dem math shit, but no one can dick them back.
I'll remember the double standard next time.

I was really referring to you calling me an asshole, but if that's how you want to play, have at it.

 

[bripat9643]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Congratulations to all of you who want smaller government! 39,000 jobs were shed in June. Of course, private businesses only added 57,000 jobs, so the unemployment rate went up, but that's what smaller government looks like!

So again, Congratulations!

So Obama's free market, small government policies caused the uptic in the unemployment rate?

You can't dream up shit this stupid.

 

[Flopper]

Dear? Government spending is not financed by leprechauns hauling pots of gold, it comes from otherwise productive people in the private sector.

Less government spending would mean more money for the private sector to expand.

Less government spending will mean more money for the private sector to expand only when taxes are reduced and that is not a certainty. Massive cuts in government spending will result in layoffs, contract cancellations, and reduced subsidies. The effects on the economy are sure and immediate. Tax cuts on the other hand are neither. Supply side theory dictates that removing taxes as an impediment to investment will result in economic expansion, however this is just an economic theory. You don't need an economy theory to tell you exactly what will happen to the economy with massive layoffs, contract cancellations, and cuts in subsidies.

Investments from tax cuts may or may not lead to significant American job growth. If economic prospects are better overseas, that's where a lot of the money will go. If economic prospects are judged to be poor at home, investors will take a defensive position parking money in treasuries, bank accounts, precious metals, collectibles and other assets that do little to increase jobs.

IMHO, low tax rates, which is what we have now for individuals do promote economic expansion over the long term, but are not that reliable as a stimulus.

I think there are a lot of changes that need to be made in the tax code that will stimulate job growth. Corporate taxes are too high and there are too many loopholes that encourage overseas job growth. The capital gains tax needs to be reworked. Capital gains on collectibles and precious metals should be your normal tax rate. These investments do little to stimulate the economy and nothing to create jobs. Gains from investments abroad should be treated as ordinary income. Capital gains on small business stocks should be reduced as should capital gains on new business start-ups.

I think If I read your post right you feel we are on the cusp of either doing to much to to little?

I agree that ALL gov. spending need not stop and it would have a bad effect if it did, the thing is, do we trust them to find the right mix? OI, have no faith at this point in ANY of them.....we are sitting here, 'losing our religion'

I think we are getting too near the 2012 elections for congress to do much other than give each side something to take home to voters at the break to justify their existence. As summer ends, we will be in full campaign mode, ready for a full year on nonstop campaigning with the usually rhetoric, reduce the size of government, cut taxes, cut spending, bring the troops home, invest in America, and the usually B.S. 2013 should be the year for some big changes in spending and taxes regardless of the election outcome.

 

[Cimerian]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

Congratulations to all of you who want smaller government! 39,000 jobs were shed in June. Of course, private businesses only added 57,000 jobs, so the unemployment rate went up, but that's what smaller government looks like!

So again, Congratulations!

I'm not a republican but hey I'm happy. That's 39k worthless non workers off the government tit now. I wonder if they will actually look for a job now or just sit for 99 weeks on unemployment. Has anyone ever seen a government worker actually work?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What people fail to realize is government spending is a major component of GDP. GDP is about 14.2 trillion. The federal government spending makes up 3.8 trillion. State governments are spending about 1.3 trillion. What this means is that government spending accounts 36% of our gross domestic product. After you include local government the figure is 41% of GDP.

You can not seriously reduce government spending without further depressing the economy. It may prove beneficial in the long term but in the short term it means another recession which will further reduce government revenue which will increase the deficit, not a pretty picture.

United States Government Current Spending Analysis - Federal State Local

Dear? Government spending is not financed by leprechauns hauling pots of gold, it comes from otherwise productive people in the private sector.

Less government spending would mean more money for the private sector to expand.

Less government spending will mean more money for the private sector to expand only when taxes are reduced and that is not a certainty. Massive cuts in government spending will result in layoffs, contract cancellations, and reduced subsidies. The effects on the economy are sure and immediate. Tax cuts on the other hand are neither. Supply side theory dictates that removing taxes as an impediment to investment will result in economic expansion, however this is just an economic theory. You don't need an economy theory to tell you exactly what will happen to the economy with massive layoffs, contract cancellations, and cuts in subsidies.

Investments from tax cuts may or may not lead to significant American job growth. If economic prospects are better overseas, that's where a lot of the money will go. If economic prospects are judged to be poor at home, investors will take a defensive position parking money in treasuries, bank accounts, precious metals, collectibles and other assets that do little to increase jobs.

IMHO, low tax rates, which is what we have now for individuals do promote economic expansion over the long term, but are not that reliable as a stimulus.

I think there are a lot of changes that need to be made in the tax code that will stimulate job growth. Corporate taxes are too high and there are too many loopholes that encourage overseas job growth. The capital gains tax needs to be reworked. Capital gains on collectibles and precious metals should be your normal tax rate. These investments do little to stimulate the economy and nothing to create jobs. Gains from investments abroad should be treated as ordinary income. Capital gains on small business stocks should be reduced as should capital gains on new business start-ups.

Government spending is not taking money out of the private sector because it's being borrowed. Interest rates are around zilch.

Businesses aren't expanding because the business isn't there. Period.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Boehner had his face on the air today trying to blame the president on this, which is pretty ironic since Boehner was one the GOP'ers back in December claiming that the tax cut bill the Republicans wanted (and got) would end the uncertainty that was keeping businesses from hiring.

that was 6 months ago. Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?

Where are the jobs Mr. Boehner?

Jesus Christ, idiot.

Shall I post the You Tube vid of your beloved Obama during his campaign regarding how many jobs he - OBAMA - was going to produce if elected? Or are you capable of finding it yourself - Cleatus?

Pull you nose out of Obama's ass for a moment and suck on some oxygen, vs. Obama's orifice.

What an idiot.

Do you wish to deny that Boehner said that the tax cut bill of December (the one that COST 800 billion) was needed to get businesses to start hiring?

Go ahead, deny it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Desperation in Hopey Changey Land for sure. What's next??...Blame DA PALIN and call evryone Racists? SHEESH!

Your posts offer nothing constructive to the conversation, but they do make me laugh.

Thanks!

He's brazenly defying the admonition in your username.

 

[bripat9643]

Ok. Then tell us. How does 39,000 losing their jobs benefit us?

If they were useless tics on the ass of society, the answer is obvious. How does a tic benefit its host?

 

[Trajan]

Less government spending will mean more money for the private sector to expand only when taxes are reduced and that is not a certainty. Massive cuts in government spending will result in layoffs, contract cancellations, and reduced subsidies. The effects on the economy are sure and immediate. Tax cuts on the other hand are neither. Supply side theory dictates that removing taxes as an impediment to investment will result in economic expansion, however this is just an economic theory. You don't need an economy theory to tell you exactly what will happen to the economy with massive layoffs, contract cancellations, and cuts in subsidies.

Investments from tax cuts may or may not lead to significant American job growth. If economic prospects are better overseas, that's where a lot of the money will go. If economic prospects are judged to be poor at home, investors will take a defensive position parking money in treasuries, bank accounts, precious metals, collectibles and other assets that do little to increase jobs.

IMHO, low tax rates, which is what we have now for individuals do promote economic expansion over the long term, but are not that reliable as a stimulus.

I think there are a lot of changes that need to be made in the tax code that will stimulate job growth. Corporate taxes are too high and there are too many loopholes that encourage overseas job growth. The capital gains tax needs to be reworked. Capital gains on collectibles and precious metals should be your normal tax rate. These investments do little to stimulate the economy and nothing to create jobs. Gains from investments abroad should be treated as ordinary income. Capital gains on small business stocks should be reduced as should capital gains on new business start-ups.

I think If I read your post right you feel we are on the cusp of either doing to much to to little?

I agree that ALL gov. spending need not stop and it would have a bad effect if it did, the thing is, do we trust them to find the right mix? OI, have no faith at this point in ANY of them.....we are sitting here, 'losing our religion'

I think we are getting too near the 2012 elections for congress to do much other than give each side something to take home to voters at the break to justify their existence. As summer ends, we will be in full campaign mode, ready for a full year on nonstop campaigning with the usually rhetoric, reduce the size of government, cut taxes, cut spending, bring the troops home, invest in America, and the usually B.S. 2013 should be the year for some big changes in spending and taxes regardless of the election outcome.

I agree,unfortunately part of the subtext is- obama needs a win desperately, especially a bi partisan one, the gop doesn't want to give it to him.