Where Are The Jobs

[Jarhead]

They will now tell you that regulation is the problem.

Whatever the root of the problem is - it can't be a consumer demand issue - because that would imply that we need to shift some tax burden from middle to upper class (at least temporarily) - and the right in Congress has already indicated that is a "principle" they won't compromise.

What amazes me is that the founding fathers were able to compromise on the issue of owning other human beings as property - but the right won't compromise on a tax hike for the rich who now enjoy the lowest tax rates of their working lives (unless they are like 100 years old) - in exchange for spending cuts they claim are desperately needed,

Question for you.....

Lets say things were going well for you and you decided to put 75K in a new klitchen and bathroom in your home.

LOL! I own a duplex valued at 197k. If I put a new kitchen and bathroom on the owner side (our side) for 75k, that's be over half the value of our one side of the house.

You had a nice job. You just received a raise...all is looking secure for you.

You started collecting bids...ready to dive into the project.

I would probably do most of the work myself. It would take me 5x longer than a pro maybe, but in my experience if you want something done right you have to do it yourself (just the other day my wife's car's oil light was on. So I look underneath and would you believe the lube people didn't screw the damn filter on tightly enough, and it came loose and spilled everywhere? Its not their car - so why would they care?)

Then, out of the blue, you found out that your school and property taxes were going up. Likewise, whereas you got a raise, you found out that from next month on, you will need to pay for your own health insurance. Furthermore, you got a notice from your heating company saying that your contract expired, and your new contract will cost you about 20% more.

Would you reconsider the project on your kitchen and bath?

Enough said.

Depends on what the property taxes actually do. Where I live now, every home owner pays an extra $200 a year in property taxes to fund our own neighborhood security - staffed by off-duty NOPD - and as a result our neighborhood is much safer than most of the rest of the city, and hence, our property values are higher. If I put 75k into our house the house will be worth that much more- in a shitty neighborhood with lots of crime if you dump 75k into a house the house will still be worth shit.



If my property taxes went up, I'd raise rent on the tenant side accordingly. After that, on the owner side, our 98.5k - 75k homeowners exemption leaves only a 23.5k tax base. Whooptee do.

Why would you ask a question - and then follow it with "enough said"? Obviously - if I get a raise, but my employer drops my health insurance and the raise can't make up the difference, I didn't really get a raise, did I ?

Heating company 'contract' ? WTF is that? I live in New Orleans. We don't understand such things. A space heater is more than enough.

completely diverted from the crux of the analogy..

I wonder why you did that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because he's stupid.
We've had a cut in employment tax for 3 years, one that Obama has gone to the mat to preserve, and there has been little uptick in consumer demand. So consumer demand isn't the issue here.
The issue is gov't regulatory policies, which are the only thing that's really changed from 4 years ago.

 

[Avatar4321]

Lowering taxes in 2001 did create jobs. We had near full employment until 2006 when Democrats took office.

.

We had 4.2% at the start of 2001 and 9.4% unemployment by December of 2010, when the Bush tax cuts were due to expire. So, essentially, over the course of the Bush tax cuts being in effect, as they were originally designed,

unemployment effectively doubled.

How is that a case for job creation?

If you skewer the data, like you just did, you can make up whatever the hell you want.

But the fact is in 2001 we were feeling the effects of the Clinton recession. Plus we were hit with 9/11 and alot of fall out from corporate corruption of the 90s. The unemployment rate went up. and the tax cuts brought it back down until 2007.

Now what happened in 2007? Any significant change in our government?

So rather than be honest and look at the whole period. you want to pretend there was absolutely no growth during the earlier part of the decade and that everythings gone hill since those tax cuts. That's blatantly false. We can pin point where the economy went south and surprise surprise. It's right where the Democrats took over Congress.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Ya think? Raising the minimum wage certainly contributed to raising the unemployment numbers.

ROTFLMAO!

A Republican's dream. Three employees doing the work of five. Next think you know we'll be returning to county poor houses.

What exactly did you think was going to happen when the government mandated a wage increase? I'll give you a hint,, in addition to rising unemployment, think "inflation".

I wonder how the people who were working for less than $7.00 an hour and no benefits felt about that.
Your statement shows in detail the "Let Them Eat Cake" attitude of those who are so far out of touch with reality that they'll never "Get It"

 

[The Rabbi]

ROTFLMAO!

A Republican's dream. Three employees doing the work of five. Next think you know we'll be returning to county poor houses.

What exactly did you think was going to happen when the government mandated a wage increase? I'll give you a hint,, in addition to rising unemployment, think "inflation".

I wonder how the people who were working for less than $7.00 an hour and no benefits felt about that.
Your statement shows in detail the "Let Them Eat Cake" attitude of those who are so far out of touch with reality that they'll never "Get It"

Do you mean "how did they feel about that" after they lost their jobs? Because the choice is not between jobs at $7/hr and jobs a $9/hr but between jobs at $7/hr and no job at all.

 

[Oldstyle]

ROTFLMAO!

A Republican's dream. Three employees doing the work of five. Next think you know we'll be returning to county poor houses.

What exactly did you think was going to happen when the government mandated a wage increase? I'll give you a hint,, in addition to rising unemployment, think "inflation".

I wonder how the people who were working for less than $7.00 an hour and no benefits felt about that.
Your statement shows in detail the "Let Them Eat Cake" attitude of those who are so far out of touch with reality that they'll never "Get It"

I'll give you a hint as well, Cam...entry level jobs don't pay a lot because they are entry level jobs. If you do them well...you will move up to the next tier of jobs that pay better...if you do THAT job well you will move up yet another tier to an even better paying job.

What you and the OWS dreamers want is for entry level jobs to pay enough to raise a family on. It's a stupid premise held by naive people.

 

[Jarhead]

ROTFLMAO!

A Republican's dream. Three employees doing the work of five. Next think you know we'll be returning to county poor houses.

What exactly did you think was going to happen when the government mandated a wage increase? I'll give you a hint,, in addition to rising unemployment, think "inflation".

I wonder how the people who were working for less than $7.00 an hour and no benefits felt about that.
Your statement shows in detail the "Let Them Eat Cake" attitude of those who are so far out of touch with reality that they'll never "Get It"

when my son was 16 he was working at a local deli/bagel store for 8 bucks an hour. After about a year, another local deli offered him 10 an hour to join their team. He approached his present employer and told him of the offer, and his present employer upped his salary to 12 an hour to stay on with him.

There is a moral to that story, but I highly doubt you will be able to grasp it.

 

[Jarhead]

What exactly did you think was going to happen when the government mandated a wage increase? I'll give you a hint,, in addition to rising unemployment, think "inflation".

I wonder how the people who were working for less than $7.00 an hour and no benefits felt about that.
Your statement shows in detail the "Let Them Eat Cake" attitude of those who are so far out of touch with reality that they'll never "Get It"

I'll give you a hint as well, Cam...entry level jobs don't pay a lot because they are entry level jobs. If you do them well...you will move up to the next tier of jobs that pay better...if you do THAT job well you will move up yet another tier to an even better paying job.

What you and the OWS dreamers want is for entry level jobs to pay enough to raise a family on. It's a stupid premise held by naive people.

thats where people dont get it.
There are many menial jobs where an employee is not paid based n their personla talent...instead they are paid based on the value of the job itself.

If a man gets paid 12 an hour to sort the mail....exactly what reason would an employer have to up his salary over a ten year period to 25 an hour? Afterall, he is doing the exact same job with the exact same results that he was doing 10 years earlier.

It is up to people to do what they need to do to better themselves...

But it seems the general sentimnet is for the people to stagnate and the business owners simply give them more money

 

[Cammmpbell]

What exactly did you think was going to happen when the government mandated a wage increase? I'll give you a hint,, in addition to rising unemployment, think "inflation".

I wonder how the people who were working for less than $7.00 an hour and no benefits felt about that.
Your statement shows in detail the "Let Them Eat Cake" attitude of those who are so far out of touch with reality that they'll never "Get It"

Do you mean "how did they feel about that" after they lost their jobs? Because the choice is not between jobs at $7/hr and jobs a $9/hr but between jobs at $7/hr and no job at all.

LOL! You're not just a little stupid you are phuckin' insane

 

[The Rabbi]

I wonder how the people who were working for less than $7.00 an hour and no benefits felt about that.
Your statement shows in detail the "Let Them Eat Cake" attitude of those who are so far out of touch with reality that they'll never "Get It"

Do you mean "how did they feel about that" after they lost their jobs? Because the choice is not between jobs at $7/hr and jobs a $9/hr but between jobs at $7/hr and no job at all.

LOL! You're not just a little stupid you are phuckin' insane

Translation: that went right over my head.

 

[Rozman]

Republican politicians continue to repeat ad nauseum that the reason they defend low tax rates for the wealthy is to sustain an environment which creates new jobs. Tax rates at this time are the lowest they've been in nearly 50 years. Why is the unemployment rate hovering around 9%

I don't understand...
Obama appears on TV monthly...
I'm not suggesting here that he only shows
his face on camera monthly...He's on TV almost hourly.
But he's on monthly bragging about another consecutive
month of positive job numbers.The WH lackeys go on TV
all the time bragging about how this President saved the world
from economic ruin from all the jobs saved/created because he saved
us all with the stimulus...

Now the lefties are on here constantly crying about the lack of jobs....

Somebody needs to " splain " things to me.....

 

[Avatar4321]

It's called: Somebody is lying.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Over 113,000 pages of new regs have been passed this year alone.

New companies can no longer afford to start up b/c they can't understand all the regs and can't afford the team of lawyers that can.

therefore big biz has no new competition to lose employees too. And since they can only expect more regs, thus increasing the cost of doing biz, they must wait it out or risk loosing enough capital to compete.

You are misinformed. I own a small biz. Haven't seen a single new reg that affects the operation of my biz. I think someone is selling and you're buying. Of course, I could be wrong care to cite some of the regs that are literally stopping businesses from being able to open?

 

[Rozman]

How can anyone grow their company
when they are faced with a Health Care deal
where one of the lawmakers in Congress
said he needed a bunch of lawyers to explain it to him.
We have Princess Nancy Pelosi caught on video
telling people that we need to pass the bill then we will
be able to see what's in it...

Are these Democrats for friggin real....

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Republican politicians continue to repeat ad nauseum that the reason they defend low tax rates for the wealthy is to sustain an environment which creates new jobs. Tax rates at this time are the lowest they've been in nearly 50 years. Why is the unemployment rate hovering around 9%

No they aren't. The lowest rates were under Reagan in the late 80s.

In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark tax reform legislation.

As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from 70% to 28%.

Taxes: What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8, 2010

That's what now, the fourth time this week I've proven you to be either ignorant or a blatant liar?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Yeah like the fantastic Reagan years. He and Bush 41 quadrupled the national debt and funneled trillions of dollars of the borrowed money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans through tax cuts.

No, the government didn't funnel any money to the wealthy through tax cuts. That's a physically impossible thing to do since the government doesn't make any money. They have only what we give them.

So that is another lie you've been caught in this week. You must not be very confident in the things you say considering you so frequently have to make up "facts" in order to make your points.

 

[Rozman]

Yeah like the fantastic Reagan years. He and Bush 41 quadrupled the national debt and funneled trillions of dollars of the borrowed money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans through tax cuts.

No, the government didn't funnel any money to the wealthy through tax cuts. That's a physically impossible thing to do since the government doesn't make any money. They have only what we give them.

So that is another lie you've been caught in this week. You must not be very confident in the things you say considering you so frequently have to make up "facts" in order to make your points.

As I remember it the Bush tax cut went to everyone not just to the wealthy.
The left conveniently leaves that out of the conversation.

The left in their argument when talking of the bush tax cuts tries to make it out like the government is digging into their own pockets to give the wealthy money that doesn't belong to them.The truth is that the government was letting the wealthy KEEP more of their own money.

What a bunch of liars these lefties are...
And they talk about everyone else lying.

I just wish the voting left will at least spend a few minutes and do some research before voting this time.Don't just fall for the catchy slogans and misleading ads.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Over 113,000 pages of new regs have been passed this year alone.

New companies can no longer afford to start up b/c they can't understand all the regs and can't afford the team of lawyers that can.

therefore big biz has no new competition to lose employees too. And since they can only expect more regs, thus increasing the cost of doing biz, they must wait it out or risk loosing enough capital to compete.

You are misinformed. I own a small biz. Haven't seen a single new reg that affects the operation of my biz. I think someone is selling and you're buying. Of course, I could be wrong care to cite some of the regs that are literally stopping businesses from being able to open?

Don't hold your breath. They only watch FAUX News.

 

[Vel]

ROTFLMAO!

A Republican's dream. Three employees doing the work of five. Next think you know we'll be returning to county poor houses.

What exactly did you think was going to happen when the government mandated a wage increase? I'll give you a hint,, in addition to rising unemployment, think "inflation".

I wonder how the people who were working for less than $7.00 an hour and no benefits felt about that.
Your statement shows in detail the "Let Them Eat Cake" attitude of those who are so far out of touch with reality that they'll never "Get It"

Are you incapable of simply answering a question? I asked, "What did YOU think was going to happen when the government mandated a wage increase?" What did you think the reality was going to be? Did you think that businesses were simply going to absorb the extra costs?
It seems to me that before you start claiming other people to be out of touch with reality and unable to "Get it", you might make sure that you "get it" yourself. Just because you don't like the reality that certain decisions or behaviors cause, doesn't change it.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Over 113,000 pages of new regs have been passed this year alone.

New companies can no longer afford to start up b/c they can't understand all the regs and can't afford the team of lawyers that can.

therefore big biz has no new competition to lose employees too. And since they can only expect more regs, thus increasing the cost of doing biz, they must wait it out or risk loosing enough capital to compete.

You are misinformed. I own a small biz. Haven't seen a single new reg that affects the operation of my biz. I think someone is selling and you're buying. Of course, I could be wrong care to cite some of the regs that are literally stopping businesses from being able to open?

Don't hold your breath. They only watch FAUX News.

Hey! I watch FOX news! Oh wait, you said ONLY. Ah yes. That would explain the lack of facts, logic etc...