Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 73

Thread: non-farm payrolls out....+69000 vs

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4482663][B][SIZE="4"]
    LMAO........ [/SIZE][/B]

    yes..that must be the solution.:rolleyes: All the spending by FDR did nothing to reduce unemployment. NOTHING. Governmentm cant solve this except by getting out of the way.[/QUOTE]

    There were about 120 million people in the US in 1930

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_United_States_Census[/url]

    There are 48.9 million people collecting disability in the US in 2012

    [url]http://www.infouse.com/disabilitydata/disability/1_1.php[/url]


    Without any further research, I think it's safe to say that the percentage of the US population dependent on the federal government, whether "employed" with a make work, no show job ie Dept of Commerce, Dept of Energy, EOCC, or simply given welfare, disability, or SSI is double whatever percentage were "employed" by FDR's buy vote jobs.

    If the federal government was the solution, then the trajectory from prosperity to depression would never have occured. In fact, just the opposite would have happened.

    But hey, we're dealing with moonbattery here.

    And wasn't the stimulus supposed to create jobs? LMAO

    Yeah, let's give the looter Obama [I]more[/I] money.

    F'n idiots.

  2. #22
    You're using stats from 1993, wow you are not bright.


    [QUOTE=Frequent Flyer;4482699]There were about 120 million people in the US in 1930

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1930_United_States_Census[/url]

    There are 48.9 million people collecting disability in the US in 2012

    [url]http://www.infouse.com/disabilitydata/disability/1_1.php[/url]


    Without any further research, I think it's safe to say that the percentage of the US population dependent on the federal government, whether "employed" with a make work, no show job ie Dept of Commerce, Dept of Energy, EOCC, or simply given welfare, disability, or SSI is double whatever percentage were "employed" by FDR's buy vote jobs.

    If the federal government was the solution, then the trajectory from prosperity to depression would never have occured. In fact, just the opposite would have happened.

    But hey, we're dealing with moonbattery here.

    And wasn't the stimulus supposed to create jobs? LMAO

    Yeah, let's give the looter Obama [I]more[/I] money.

    F'n idiots.[/QUOTE]

  3. #23
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,863
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4482452][B]Krugman? Really? I stand corrected.[/B] :rolleyes:
    [/quote]lol; that's what we were discussing. :scratch: no need to share your opinion of the man.


    [quote][B]How about we try to increase spending by growing the economy.[/B]



    The word empirical implies proven, studied, peer reviewed.[/QUOTE]
    Fine by me!

    The Great Depression has been studied ad nauseum and Krugman uses that "empirical" evidence to make his points.

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,617
    [QUOTE=Buster;4482684]You really are going to argue that FDR using the federal government to employ people did not reduce unemployment?


    You really ought to study up on your wing-nut arguments before posting[/QUOTE]


    FROM WIKI....

    Although the American economy recovered in mid-1938, employment did not regain the 1937 level until the United States entered World War II in late 1941. Personal income in 1939 was almost at 1919 levels in aggregate, but not per capita. The farm population had fallen 5%, but farm output was up 19% in 1939.

    Employment in private sector factories regained the levels reached in 1929 and 1937, but did not exceed them until the onset of World War II, and manufacturing employment leaped from 11 million in 1940 to just over 18 million in 1943[citation needed]. Productivity steadily increased, and output in 1942 was well above the levels of both 1929 and 1937.




    Government spending will not solve this problem.

  5. #25
    If expansion of the government was the solution, not only would be already be out of this mess, we would have never been in this mess.

    [url]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2010[/url]

    Some people have no idea how an economy works. In terms of making the economy grow, hiring more government workers is no different than putting more people on welfare. You still have to take money out of the productive sector and transfer it to the non-productive sector.

    The national debt is now 100% of GDP.

    [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011546-503544.html[/url]

    Trying to use FDR's policies from 80 years ago :rotfl: and apply them now, assuming that they even worked, would be ridiculous. We have a completely different set of demographics, debt to GDP ratio, and most importantly, our currency had a gold standard then, it doesn't now.

    Face it, Obama's policies are the root cause for why we are still in a recession. He has expanded the government, ballooned our debt, devalued our currency, and has caused misery and pain because those policies have led to massive inflation. His energy policies have done nothing good, unless defrauding the taxpayer and looting the treasury of billions of dollars to front green energy scams is your definition of "progress". He has empowered the EPA and other unelected beauracracies to act as a Gestapo forcing coal plants to close, destroying local economies and causing electricity rates to "skyrocket" (which is what he wanted). He even went after a guitar company. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so bizarre and dangerous.

    The man's a fool. He's had his 4 years. He's a proven failure and loser. Worse than that, he's a dangerous ideologue. Stop making excuses for this guy.

    Putting more people on welfare, or disability, or the Energy Dept lol is not going to restore the nation to have a healthy economy. LMAO

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=Buster;4482630]A big spending bill is needed.[/QUOTE]
    Of course. But spend even more than the last spending bill in the hopes it works this time, right?

    The #1 reason why a business fails is because it doubles down on things that don't work.

    I think this would apply to our federal government spending habits as well.

  7. #27
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,800
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4482997]FROM WIKI....

    Although the American economy recovered in mid-1938, employment did not regain the 1937 level until the United States entered World War II in late 1941. Personal income in 1939 was almost at 1919 levels in aggregate, but not per capita. The farm population had fallen 5%, but farm output was up 19% in 1939.

    Employment in private sector factories regained the levels reached in 1929 and 1937, but did not exceed them until the onset of World War II, and manufacturing employment leaped from 11 million in 1940 to just over 18 million in 1943[citation needed]. Productivity steadily increased, and output in 1942 was well above the levels of both 1929 and 1937.




    Government spending will not solve this problem.[/QUOTE]



    FDR became president in 1933.

    WWII employment was a direct result of government spending.

  8. #28
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,800
    [QUOTE=sackdance;4483083]Of course. But spend even more than the last spending bill in the hopes it works this time, right?

    The #1 reason why a business fails is because it doubles down on things that don't work.

    I think this would apply to our federal government spending habits as well.[/QUOTE]

    Fixing bridges, roads, Railroads and the power grid "don't work"?
    Really?

    We can grow without them?

    Comparing the federal Government to business is a bad comparison but if we must. Businesses always take out loans to get things done. That is the way business is done.

    The Republican Presidential nominee Governor Romney made his name by buying weak companies with good credit. Then Romney (Bain) would borrow heavily and repair the company hopefully making them strong again. This is basically what he and Bain Capital did.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=Frequent Flyer;4483067]If expansion of the government was the solution, not only would be already be out of this mess, we would have never been in this mess.

    [url]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2010[/url]

    Some people have no idea how an economy works. In terms of making the economy grow, hiring more government workers is no different than putting more people on welfare. You still have to take money out of the productive sector and transfer it to the non-productive sector.

    The national debt is now 100% of GDP.

    [url]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011546-503544.html[/url]

    Trying to use FDR's policies from 80 years ago :rotfl: and apply them now, assuming that they even worked, would be ridiculous. We have a completely different set of demographics, debt to GDP ratio, and most importantly, our currency had a gold standard then, it doesn't now.

    Face it, Obama's policies are the root cause for why we are still in a recession. He has expanded the government, ballooned our debt, devalued our currency, and has caused misery and pain because those policies have led to massive inflation. His energy policies have done nothing good, unless defrauding the taxpayer and looting the treasury of billions of dollars to front green energy scams is your definition of "progress". He has empowered the EPA and other unelected beauracracies to act as a Gestapo forcing coal plants to close, destroying local economies and causing electricity rates to "skyrocket" (which is what he wanted). He even went after a guitar company. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so bizarre and dangerous.

    The man's a fool. He's had his 4 years. He's a proven failure and loser. Worse than that, he's a dangerous ideologue. Stop making excuses for this guy.

    Putting more people on welfare, or disability, or the Energy Dept lol is not going to restore the nation to have a healthy economy. LMAO[/QUOTE]

    We are going to provide the unemployed wellfare in the form of unemployment insurance, food stamsp, health care and housing if we can give them productive work that gives us some pay back instead of pissing it away on people laying on their couches it's better for the economy in the long run. We have plenty of real infrastructure projects which can improve our economy in the long run which is much more productive then wellfare.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 06-04-2012 at 05:27 AM.

  10. #30
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,538
    Sure, once power rates are jacked up to raise the $100B "needed" for upgrade, citizens cease rallying against power lines plants or pipelines in their neighborhoods (NIMBY / BANANA lib mentality of Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything/Anyone), tolls gas and registration fees are hiked further to fix "crumbling" roads currently unmaintained as they are supposed to be with existing "revenue" and railroads (re) built that no one has demanded to ride since WWII...everything will be better.

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4483417]We are going to provide the unemployed wellfare in the form of unemployment insurance, food stamsp, health care and housing if we can give them productive work that gives us some pay back instead of pissing it away on people laying on their couches it's better for the economy in the long run. We have plenty of real infrastructure projects which can improve our economy in the long run which is much more productive then wellfare.[/QUOTE]

    Is this anything like the new structure to replace the Golden Gate Bridge in San Fran? The one that is now fully constructed and about to be shipped over from China for installation?

    [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/business/global/26bridge.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all[/url]

    SHANGHAI — Talk about outsourcing.


    Jim Wilson/The New York Times


    Next month, the last four of more than two dozen giant steel modules — each with a roadbed segment about half the size of a football field — will be loaded onto a huge ship and transported 6,500 miles to Oakland. There, they will be assembled to fit into the eastern span of the new Bay Bridge.

    The project is part of China’s continual move up the global economic value chain — from cheap toys to Apple iPads to commercial jetliners — as it aims to become the world’s civil engineer.

    The assembly work in California, and the pouring of the concrete road surface, will be done by Americans. But construction of the bridge decks and the materials that went into them are a Made in China affair. California officials say the state saved hundreds of millions of dollars by turning to China.

    “They’ve produced a pretty impressive bridge for us,” Tony Anziano, a program manager at the California Department of Transportation, said a few weeks ago. He was touring the 1.2-square-mile manufacturing site that the Chinese company created to do the bridge work. “Four years ago, there were just steel plates here and lots of orange groves.”

    On the reputation of showcase projects like Beijing’s Olympic-size airport terminal and the mammoth hydroelectric Three Gorges Dam, Chinese companies have been hired to build copper mines in the Congo, high-speed rail lines in Brazil and huge apartment complexes in Saudi Arabia.

    In New York City alone, Chinese companies have won contracts to help renovate the subway system, refurbish the Alexander Hamilton Bridge over the Harlem River and build a new Metro-North train platform near Yankee Stadium. As with the Bay Bridge, American union labor would carry out most of the work done on United States soil.

    American steelworker unions have disparaged the Bay Bridge contract by accusing the state of California of sending good jobs overseas and settling for what they deride as poor-quality Chinese steel. Industry groups in the United States and other countries have raised questions about the safety and quality of Chinese workmanship on such projects. Indeed, China has had quality control problems ranging from tainted milk to poorly built schools.

    But executives and officials who have awarded the various Chinese contracts say their audits have convinced them of the projects’ engineering integrity. And they note that with the full financial force of the Chinese government behind its infrastructure companies, the monumental scale of the work, and the prices bid, are hard for private industry elsewhere to beat.

    The new Bay Bridge, expected to open to traffic in 2013, will replace a structure that has never been quite the same since the 1989 Bay Area earthquake. At $7.2 billion, it will be one of the most expensive structures ever built. But California officials estimate that they will save at least $400 million by having so much of the work done in China. (California issued bonds to finance the project, and will look to recoup the cost through tolls.)

    California authorities say they had little choice but to rebuild major sections of the bridge, despite repairs made after the earthquake caused a section of the eastern span to collapse onto the lower deck. Seismic safety testing persuaded the state that much of the bridge needed to be overhauled and made more quake-resistant.

    Eventually, the California Department of Transportation decided to revamp the western span of the bridge (which connects San Francisco to Yerba Buena Island) and replace the 2.2-mile eastern span (which links Yerba Buena to Oakland).

    On the eastern span, officials decided to build a suspension bridge with a complex design. The span will have a single, 525-foot tower, anchored to bedrock and supported by a single, enormous steel-wire cable that threads through the suspension bridge.

    “We wanted something strong and secure, but we also wanted something iconic,” said Bart Ney, a transportation department spokesman.

    A joint venture between two American companies, American Bridge and Fluor Enterprises, won the prime contract for the project in early 2006. Their bid specified getting much of the fabricated steel from overseas, to save money.

    California decided not to apply for federal funding for the project because the “Buy America” provisos would probably have required purchasing more expensive steel and fabrication from United States manufacturers.

    China, the world’s biggest steel maker, was the front-runner, particularly because it has dominated bridge building for the last decade. Several years ago, Shanghai opened a 20-mile sea bridge; the country is now planning a much longer one near Hong Kong.

    The selection of the state-owned Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Company was a surprise, though, because the company made port cranes and had no bridge building experience.

    But California officials and executives at American Bridge said Zhenhua’s advantages included its huge steel fabrication facilities, its large low-cost work force and its solid finances. (The company even had its own port and ships.)

    “I don’t think the U.S. fabrication industry could put a project like this together,” Brian A. Petersen, project director for the American Bridge/Fluor Enterprises joint venture, said in a telephone interview. “Most U.S. companies don’t have these types of warehouses, equipment or the cash flow. The Chinese load the ships, and it’s their ships that deliver to our piers.”

    Despite the American union complaints, former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, strongly backed the project and even visited Zhenhua’s plant last September, praising “the workers that are building our Bay Bridge.”

    Zhenhua put 3,000 employees to work on the project: steel-cutters, welders, polishers and engineers. The company built the main bridge tower, which was shipped in mid-2009, and a total of 28 bridge decks — the massive triangular steel structures that will serve as the roadway platform.

    Pan Zhongwang, a 55-year-old steel polisher, is a typical Zhenhua worker. He arrives at 7 a.m. and leaves at 11 p.m., often working seven days a week. He lives in a company dorm and earns about $12 a day.

    “It used to be $9 a day, now it’s $12,” he said Wednesday morning, while polishing one of the decks for the new Bay Bridge. “Everything is getting more expensive. They should raise our pay.”

    To ensure the bridge meets safety standards, 250 employees and consultants working for the state of California and American Bridge/Fluor also took up residence in Shanghai.

    Asked about reports that some American labor groups had blocked bridge shipments from arriving in Oakland, Mr. Anziano dismissed those as confused.

    “That was not about China,” he said. “It was a disagreement between unions about which had jurisdiction and who had the right to unload a shipment. That was resolved.”

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4483417]We are going to provide the unemployed wellfare in the form of unemployment insurance, food stamsp, health care and housing if we can give them productive work that gives us some pay back[/QUOTE]

    And that's fine with me, but that wasn't the argument being made. Making welfare recipients "work" (in reality they show up late, do as little as possible, show up with excuses to leave early, smell really, really bad so that they get asked to leave etc) for the welfare check doesn't improve the economy.

  13. #33
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,863
    [QUOTE=Frequent Flyer;4483067]If expansion of the government was the solution, not only would be already be out of this mess, we would have never been in this mess.

    [URL]http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2010[/URL]

    Some people have no idea how an economy works. In terms of making the economy grow, hiring more government workers is no different than putting more people on welfare. You still have to take money out of the productive sector and transfer it to the non-productive sector.

    The national debt is now 100% of GDP.

    [URL]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011546-503544.html[/URL]

    Trying to use FDR's policies from 80 years ago :rotfl: and apply them now, assuming that they even worked, would be ridiculous. We have a completely different set of demographics, debt to GDP ratio, and most importantly, our currency had a gold standard then, it doesn't now.

    Face it, Obama's policies are the root cause for why we are still in a recession. He has expanded the government, ballooned our debt, devalued our currency, and has caused misery and pain because those policies have led to massive inflation. His energy policies have done nothing good, unless defrauding the taxpayer and looting the treasury of billions of dollars to front green energy scams is your definition of "progress". He has empowered the EPA and other unelected beauracracies to act as a Gestapo forcing coal plants to close, destroying local economies and causing electricity rates to "skyrocket" (which is what he wanted). He even went after a guitar company. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so bizarre and dangerous.

    The man's a fool. He's had his 4 years. He's a proven failure and loser. Worse than that, he's a dangerous ideologue. Stop making excuses for this guy.

    Putting more people on welfare, or disability, or the Energy Dept lol is not going to restore the nation to have a healthy economy. LMAO[/QUOTE]

    Devalued our currency? You mean our S&P rating?

    [QUOTE]The company, one of three major agencies that offer advice to investors in debt securities, said it was cutting its rating of long-term federal debt to AA+, one notch below the top grade of AAA. It described the decision as a judgment about the nation’s leaders, writing that [B]“the gulf between the political parties” [/B]had reduced its confidence in the government’s ability to manage its finances.
    “The downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenge,” the company said in a statement.
    [/QUOTE]
    You want me to vote for GOPinheads? You'll need better persuasive skills.

    Soon.

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,617
    [QUOTE=WestCoastOffensive;4484095]Devalued our currency? You mean our S&P rating?


    You want me to vote for GOPinheads? You'll need better persuasive skills.

    Soon.[/QUOTE]

    PS..your individual vote is meaningless. Your state is a socialist republic:D. Even if 100,000 of your friends voted republican, it wouldnt matter.

    Yeah...we need more 200K a year civil servants retiring and leaving the state with their 125K pensions. Good for California.

  15. #35
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,863
    [QUOTE=southparkcpa;4484098]PS..your individual vote is meaningless. Your state is a socialist republic:D. Even if 100,000 of your friends voted republican, it wouldnt matter.

    Yeah...we need more 200K a year civil servants retiring and leaving the state with their 125K pensions. Good for California.[/QUOTE]

    California looked like the smart play when I was an eight year old dweeb watching commercials made in Los Angeles. All I cared about was getting out West like the Road Runner. meep meep

    I guess I never checked to see who actually made the decision to come to Cali, lol. ;):D :scratch:

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=WestCoastOffensive;4484106]California looked like the smart play when I was an eight year old dweeb watching commercials made in Los Angeles. All I cared about was getting out West like the Road Runner. meep meep

    I guess I never checked to see who actually made the decision to come to Cali, lol. ;):D :scratch:[/QUOTE]

    San Jose called and they want their solvent government back. Alas it is too late. Years of progressive Democrat control has destroyed the once great state of California.

  17. #37
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,863
    [QUOTE=chiefst2000;4484281]San Jose called and they want their solvent government back. Alas it is too late. Years of progressive Democrat control has destroyed the once great state of California.[/QUOTE]

    Look jackass - people get into politics to serve; to make a difference. With some 30 million people in California, you will get loggerheads and stalemates. Your one-off, mealy-mouthed proclamations make me ill. The next time you say something relevant that isn't an amalgam of prejudice and bias...it will be the first. You are way off base with the Bay Bridge (not the Golden Gate, btw) as there were some serious North-South issues with financing - can you re-set that one for me? How about the lack of Federal Funds based on not using the "Made in USA" program? Can you tell me about how that evolved? Probably not, because it doesn't have a bedtime story about Obama the Witch built into it.

  18. #38
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    [QUOTE=WestCoastOffensive;4484331]...people get into politics to serve; to make a difference...[/QUOTE]

    [IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G7X2hm_XIKM/TphNAovr-wI/AAAAAAAADW4/sQmKkDMu41U/s1600/lisafrank+unicorns.gif[/IMG]

  19. #39
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    18,617
    [QUOTE=WestCoastOffensive;4484331]Look jackass - people get into politics to serve; to make a difference. With some 30 million people in California, you will get loggerheads and stalemates. Your one-off, mealy-mouthed proclamations make me ill. The next time you say something relevant that isn't an amalgam of prejudice and bias...it will be the first. You are way off base with the Bay Bridge (not the Golden Gate, btw) as there were some serious North-South issues with financing - can you re-set that one for me? How about the lack of Federal Funds based on not using the "Made in USA" program? Can you tell me about how that evolved? Probably not, because it doesn't have a bedtime story about Obama the Witch built into it.[/QUOTE]

    Tell me your not defending California finances???

  20. #40
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    30,863
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4484375][IMG]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-G7X2hm_XIKM/TphNAovr-wI/AAAAAAAADW4/sQmKkDMu41U/s1600/lisafrank+unicorns.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]

    Absolutely, you can serve the LGBT community; they need a good potato. :yes:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us