Where are the jobs?

[uscitizen]

Ohh go suck on a colpitts oscillator.

 

[uscitizen]

btw we are in a corner. Yes the govt is too big and Bush, Reagan, etc helped to grow it a LOT!
But if we cut spending too much we will have a genuine depression.

 

[uscitizen]

Stephen Moore writes in the Wall Street Journal:

If you want to understand better why so many states — from New York to Wisconsin to California — are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

More Americans Work For the Government Than In Manufacturing, Farming, Fishing, Forestry, Mining & Utilities Combined | Disinformation

And this number does not even include the numbers of people that have jobs because of the welfare, foodstamp, unemployment, etc money they get and spend.

How much in foodstamps per year are given out?
That is spent in the grocery industry and is income to them.

 

[Darkwind]

Ohh go suck on a colpitts oscillator.

I see.

So you admit that a battery, supplying energy to a system like an electric care, will eventually run out of energy, even though an alternator, connected to a wheel of that car, is replenishing the energy.

Yet, the car will come to a stop.

This is because the energy used is greater than the energy being replaced.

The same formula works for government.

If government had an income of X and an expenditure of Y, and X=Y, then the system is considered in 'equilibrium'.

Right now, if we increased X to the total amount of wealth that existed in this country, it would still be X<Y, where Y is the total amount of expenditures.....

It is the same system as the electric car....

We will come to a stop....and we are not that far away from that stop right now.

The answer is to reduce Y to a point where it is less than X....X>Y.

And then allow time to heal the damage.

 

[Mr. H.]

btw we are in a corner. Yes the govt is too big and Bush, Reagan, etc helped to grow it a LOT!
But if we cut spending too much we will have a genuine depression.

Can't gov't do the same job with 1/2 the people? All they're doing is spending more money. Hell, I spend twice what I did 20 years ago. I don't need any help.

 

[Darkwind]

btw we are in a corner. Yes the govt is too big and Bush, Reagan, etc helped to grow it a LOT!
But if we cut spending too much we will have a genuine depression.

We will not. However, you are correct in one aspect. We cannot simply CUT spending. We must also reduce the downward pressure on economic growth....

As it stands, we have not removed or reduced a single regulation on business in the past 100 years. We need to do that in addition to cutting spending.

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh go suck on a colpitts oscillator.

I see.

So you admit that a battery, supplying energy to a system like an electric care, will eventually run out of energy, even though an alternator, connected to a wheel of that car, is replenishing the energy.

Yet, the car will come to a stop.

This is because the energy used is greater than the energy being replaced.

The same formula works for government.

If government had an income of X and an expenditure of Y, and X=Y, then the system is considered in 'equilibrium'.

Right now, if we increased X to the total amount of wealth that existed in this country, it would still be X<Y, where Y is the total amount of expenditures.....

It is the same system as the electric car....

We will come to a stop....and we are not that far away from that stop right now.

The answer is to reduce Y to a point where it is less than X....X>Y.

And then allow time to heal the damage.

Yep the question is how to go about it.
One can make a stubbed to stop hurting by cuttin it off.
as I posted before too much cutting of govt spendind too fast will send us into a real depression. We are just barely staying above that now.

 

[Darkwind]

btw we are in a corner. Yes the govt is too big and Bush, Reagan, etc helped to grow it a LOT!
But if we cut spending too much we will have a genuine depression.

Can't gov't do the same job with 1/2 the people? All they're doing is spending more money. Hell, I spend twice what I did 20 years ago. I don't need any help.

Very good.

We could reduce by 25%, the amount spent just by removing duplicate effort that is prevalent in government. And not harm a single program...

Yet, that alone will not be enough.

 

[uscitizen]

btw we are in a corner. Yes the govt is too big and Bush, Reagan, etc helped to grow it a LOT!
But if we cut spending too much we will have a genuine depression.

We will not. However, you are correct in one aspect. We cannot simply CUT spending. We must also reduce the downward pressure on economic growth....

As it stands, we have not removed or reduced a single regulation on business in the past 100 years. We need to do that in addition to cutting spending.

Now that is a pure lie!

How about removing the banking/finiancial regs that prevented this problem we have now from happening?

OSHA was also pretty much gutted years ago.

 

[Full-Auto]

"We estimate that the American Jobs Act (AJA), if enacted, would give a significant boost to GDP and employment over the near-term.

The various tax cuts aimed at raising workers’ after-tax income and encouraging hiring and investing, combined with the spending increases aimed at maintaining state & local employment and funding infrastructure modernization, would:
Boost the level of GDP by 1.3% by the end of 2012, and by 0.2% by the end of 2013.
Raise nonfarm establishment employment by 1.3 million by the end of 2012 and 0.8 million by the end of 2013, relative to the baseline."

Macroadvisers: American Jobs Act: A Significant Boost to GDP and Employment

Of course AJA was blocked in the Congress by Republicans, who now blame Obama for the lack of jobs.

A blog.........seriously..............

 

[Darkwind]

Ohh go suck on a colpitts oscillator.

I see.

So you admit that a battery, supplying energy to a system like an electric care, will eventually run out of energy, even though an alternator, connected to a wheel of that car, is replenishing the energy.

Yet, the car will come to a stop.

This is because the energy used is greater than the energy being replaced.

The same formula works for government.

If government had an income of X and an expenditure of Y, and X=Y, then the system is considered in 'equilibrium'.

Right now, if we increased X to the total amount of wealth that existed in this country, it would still be X<Y, where Y is the total amount of expenditures.....

It is the same system as the electric car....

We will come to a stop....and we are not that far away from that stop right now.

The answer is to reduce Y to a point where it is less than X....X>Y.

And then allow time to heal the damage.

Yep the question is how to go about it.
One can make a stubbed to stop hurting by cuttin it off.
as I posted before too much cutting of govt spendind too fast will send us into a real depression. We are just barely staying above that now.

consider this...

do we allow for less pain by allowing a limb that has been broken to heal where it is, knowing it will be less painful, but leave us crippled?

Or do we endure the sharp and intense pain of setting the broken limb and then allowing it to heal over time?

I prefer the latter. In the end, you will end up with a much more healthy and usable limb.

 

[rdean]

Come on people, you gotta admit that it's white guys without degrees who are Romney's strongest supporters. But the irony is that Romney wants to bring in educated immigrants because it's cheaper then helping those millions of Americans that will be voting for Romney. Isn't that hilarious?

 

[Full-Auto]

Come on people, you gotta admit that it's white guys without degrees who are Romney's strongest supporters. But the irony is that Romney wants to bring in educated immigrants because it's cheaper then helping those millions of Americans that will be voting for Romney. Isn't that hilarious?

Says the catch and release supporter.........

 

[Darkwind]

btw we are in a corner. Yes the govt is too big and Bush, Reagan, etc helped to grow it a LOT!
But if we cut spending too much we will have a genuine depression.

We will not. However, you are correct in one aspect. We cannot simply CUT spending. We must also reduce the downward pressure on economic growth....

As it stands, we have not removed or reduced a single regulation on business in the past 100 years. We need to do that in addition to cutting spending.

Now that is a pure lie!

How about removing the banking/finiancial regs that prevented this problem we have now from happening?

OSHA was also pretty much gutted years ago.

It is not a lie...and you have the means of verifying it.

Discover how many regulations existed prior to today. Then discover how many existed prior to Obama's election.

I'll even go you one better than that.

Discover how many regulations existed prior to Bush's election.

In each case, you will find that they have NEVER been reduced, nor have any regulations ceased to be enforced.

That is until that past year or so. But those regulations don't really have anything to do with business or economic growth.

 

[Darkwind]

Come on people, you gotta admit that it's white guys without degrees who are Romney's strongest supporters. But the irony is that Romney wants to bring in educated immigrants because it's cheaper then helping those millions of Americans that will be voting for Romney. Isn't that hilarious?

I didn't realize you were a Romney supporter?

 

[uscitizen]

We will not. However, you are correct in one aspect. We cannot simply CUT spending. We must also reduce the downward pressure on economic growth....

As it stands, we have not removed or reduced a single regulation on business in the past 100 years. We need to do that in addition to cutting spending.

Now that is a pure lie!

How about removing the banking/finiancial regs that prevented this problem we have now from happening?

OSHA was also pretty much gutted years ago.

It is not a lie...and you have the means of verifying it.

Discover how many regulations existed prior to today. Then discover how many existed prior to Obama's election.

I'll even go you one better than that.

Discover how many regulations existed prior to Bush's election.

In each case, you will find that they have NEVER been reduced, nor have any regulations ceased to be enforced.

That is until that past year or so. But those regulations don't really have anything to do with business or economic growth.

This is what you said "As it stands, we have not removed or reduced a single regulation on business in the past 100 years"

that was a lie.

 

[Darkwind]

Now that is a pure lie!

How about removing the banking/finiancial regs that prevented this problem we have now from happening?

OSHA was also pretty much gutted years ago.

It is not a lie...and you have the means of verifying it.

Discover how many regulations existed prior to today. Then discover how many existed prior to Obama's election.

I'll even go you one better than that.

Discover how many regulations existed prior to Bush's election.

In each case, you will find that they have NEVER been reduced, nor have any regulations ceased to be enforced.

That is until that past year or so. But those regulations don't really have anything to do with business or economic growth.

This is what you said "As it stands, we have not removed or reduced a single regulation on business in the past 100 years"

that was a lie.

It was not.

You cannot find a single instance in which the USC on business has been reduced.

And before you begin....dropping a regulation, but replacing it with another is NOT reducing it.

Do you know that there is 19 feet of shelf space dedicated to the USC alone? And that it has grown every year since 1900?

George W. Bush never reduced or eliminated a regulation. In fact, like all of his predecessors, he added to the vast collection of rules, regulations, and restrictions on citizen behavior.

The very thing that government is not supposed to do.

You will find that, except for his unwavering defense of this country, I am no fan of George W. Bush.

 

[uscitizen]

It is not a lie...and you have the means of verifying it.

Discover how many regulations existed prior to today. Then discover how many existed prior to Obama's election.

I'll even go you one better than that.

Discover how many regulations existed prior to Bush's election.

In each case, you will find that they have NEVER been reduced, nor have any regulations ceased to be enforced.

That is until that past year or so. But those regulations don't really have anything to do with business or economic growth.

This is what you said "As it stands, we have not removed or reduced a single regulation on business in the past 100 years"

that was a lie.

It was not.

You cannot find a single instance in which the USC on business has been reduced.

And before you begin....dropping a regulation, but replacing it with another is NOT reducing it.

Do you know that there is 19 feet of shelf space dedicated to the USC alone? And that it has grown every year since 1900?

George W. Bush never reduced or eliminated a regulation. In fact, like all of his predecessors, he added to the vast collection of rules, regulations, and restrictions on citizen behavior.

The very thing that government is not supposed to do.

You will find that, except for his unwavering defense of this country, I am no fan of George W. Bush.

You said "reduced a SINGLE regulation" you did not refer to cumulative effects.

 

[Rozman]

The jobs are in the oil and gas sectors. They can't hire fast enough. Drilling activity is pouring millions of $ into local economies. Yet, our President chooses to trash talk the industry calling for an end to what he erroniously calls "subsidies". Oh- and his budget contains at a minimum $40 billion in taxes on that industry... as a reward.

The United States is the only country in the world that villifies and castigates its oil and gas sector. It is the only country that penalizes that industry's successes and actively seeks out venues which would ultimately result in its demise.
Reply With Quote

And through regulations pushes them further and further off shore where if there is a problem it's
that much harder to fix..Ring a bell anyone.

 

[uscitizen]

Actually nat gas drilling is waaay down due to the lower price of nat gas.