Unemployment falls below 8

[twa]

You are wrong about public land, remove the ban and let the states decide

but back to the job issue....ask ND if it brings jobs and money

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2012/03/texas-north-dakota-are-rare-states.html

---------- Post added October-8th-2012 at 06:59 PM ----------

I thought I'd heard that domestic energy production is pretty close to a record.

And so are prices. In a down economy.

And we still have wars.

So is imports

So is health ins costs

We bombed Libya for oil for Europe?

[Larry]

So is imports

So is health ins costs

We bombed Libya for oil for Europe?

So, your point is "Yes, Larry, you're right. Increasing domestic energy production does not guarantee lower prices, or world peace"?

Or was it "Oops, that claim wasn't true! Quick! Let's run over here!"?

[twa]

Are they lower than they would be w/o the increased production?

Domestic sources ensure supply,not price...they also lessen imports impact on military intervention(though as Libya shows....)

conversion to NG will impact price/supply

if you want someone to undercut domestically produced oil prices,you must first have that production:)

there is no credible threat of that under O

add

if you are interested in price differentials, look and see what Cali is doing and paying

[Larry]

Are they lower than they would be w/o the increased production?

Ah. So "lower prices" means "lower than some other number"?

[twa]

Ah. So "lower prices" means "lower than some other number"?

Yes, that is how it works , much like the value of a dollar it is variable

speaking of which, the dollar falling makes oil higher....amazing ain't it.

add

or you can go this route

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/why-gas-prices-are-actually-falling/

When viewed in relation to gold, gas prices are low…only 82% of their average over the past 41 years.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You are wrong about public land, remove the ban and let the states decide

If I hear "let states decide" one more time I think I'll gag!

We have watched repeatedly as states (heavily influenced by a few key interests) have made collosal mindnumbingly and catastrophic decisions because of one or two heavy campaign contributors; Mountaintop removal is a perfect example, Texas board of education is yet another.

---------- Post added October-8th-2012 at 09:53 PM ----------

When viewed in relation to gold, gas prices are low…only 82% of their average over the past 41 years.

What a bogus example! Gold prices have shot up as the economy collapsed, it had nothing to do with supply and demand and everything to do with people seeking stable investments.

[twa]

You're just jealous cause we got better test scores in science....and math :pfft:

[Larry]

Yes, that is how it works , much like the value of a dollar it is variable

speaking of which, the dollar falling makes oil higher....amazing ain't it.

add

or you can go this route

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/why-gas-prices-are-actually-falling/

When viewed in relation to gold, gas prices are low…only 82% of their average over the past 41 years.

Well, that would explain why you can't come up with any REAL metrics for your attempt to say things aren't getting better.

Your definition of words like "better" or "higher" are "compared to things I make up".

So, does this mean you aren't attacking Obama for record gas prices, any more? Now that you've determined that they're actually below average, and all?

[twa]

Well, that would explain why you can't come up with any REAL metrics for your attempt to say things aren't getting better.

Your definition of words like "better" or "higher" are "compared to things I make up".

So, does this mean you aren't attacking Obama for record gas prices, any more? Now that you've determined that they're actually below average, and all?

I am still awaiting you to define your metrics for your yardsticks......better than what?

When O goes to the gold standard I will give him credit for lowering gas prices

[chipwhich]

I am still awaiting you to define your metrics for your yardsticks......better than what?

For me, my house is worth less than 4 years ago even though interest rates have dropped a couple of points.

My kids college tuition is higher, but hey I can get low interest college loans and default so that is good

Gas prices still suck.

My 401K plan is back to what it was 4 years ago...

Gas prices still suck.

So even steven right

[twa]

So even steven right

Wrong, you lost years ...old man

[Larry]

I am still awaiting you to define your metrics for your yardsticks......better than what?

When O goes to the gold standard I will give him credit for lowering gas prices

Until then, you will only use the gold standard when you are attempting to redefine reality.

I've already pointed out some measures by which things are better.

7.8% unemployment is better than 8.1.

GDP getting bigger is better than it getting smaller.

There are more people working than before.

I think I've read that there are fewer unemployed, but I'm not sure of that.

Corporate profits and the stock market are at or near records.

I think I've read that even housing prices are coming back up.

Heck, the federal deficit was going down. (But I think it's projected to go up, this year).

None of these are getting better QUICKLY. None of them are really good.

But "not getting better as quickly as I'd like" is not "not getting better".

----------

But your the one who claimed that they WEREN'T getting better. Tell us your metrics.

[twa]

I'll grant 7.8 is better than 8.1....but is more part time,lower paying jobs really better?(especially with energy and food costs rising)

GDP is anemic and appears to be slowing (which is the major reason QE3 is in play)

There are more working....and a all time low participation rate with a growing pop

Fewer unemployed depends on who you count....see participation rate and definitions

Corp profits are up...in devalued dollars,driven by massive govt borrowing/stimulus and a monetary policy that is shoveling them money

Housing up barely....from massive govt buying of mortgages

You say ripe tomato...I say it is rotting

Bon appetit, I ain't buying it

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'll grant 7.8 is better than 8.1....but is more part time,lower paying jobs really better?(especially with energy and food costs rising)

Look to your beloved job creators, they could be taking fewer profits and create more fulltime and better paying jobs, but they don't. Instead they choose to maximize their profits at the expense of the people. However, the GOP would have us believe that these corporations are interested in putting people yo work, and interested in providing ood fulltime jobs and lowering the unemployment rate for the good of the country.....but they don't....they just don't.

Again, you offered nothing in the way of fixing this any sooner than Obama. Yet you still want to blame him for what exactly?

Oh that's right for being a Democrat.

[twa]

Job creating is not a business model,nor have you made it worthwhile....hearing complaints about not eating the soup from those that set the table w/o spoons is beneficial

Take less profits simply to create jobs?....you being serious?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Job creating is not a business model,nor have you made it worthwhile....hearing complaints about not eating the soup from those that set the table w/o spoons is beneficial

Take less profits simply to create jobs?....you being serious?

See that's what I'm talking about, the idea that taking less profits to do a civic duty isn't even in the realm of thinking, yet that's what we keep being told that we should be focused upon, "what's good for America", you just proved it...they don't give a :censored: about what's best for America or the people. If employers could make profit with unemployment at 20% they'd do it in a heartbeat. You want us o give them everything in the hopes they'll find a reason to share the scraps off their table. It is this bourgeois attitude that brings about revolutions, ask the French and the Czars. When people tire of being peasants they take things into their own hands.

[twa]

Eat the Rich :munchout: ....but didn't the peasants work and pay taxes?

Somebody holding you to your position in life?...or you just want a shortcut to someone elses?

I want a million dollars....and a pony

[NoCalMike]

I think the dilemma is, that for unskilled labor, those types of jobs are realistically never coming back to America unless society would be willing to have a "race to the bottom" as far as working conditions go. As long as it benefits an employer to pay folks .25 a day, no benefits, OT pay etc etc...why would they ever do business in this country?

We were sold a bill of goods 30 years ago that outsourcing the labor jobs was good because it would open the door for the higher skilled jobs here. The problem with that though is one it requires higher education, often in specialized fields, and since our country seems to be valuing education at an all-time low, not to mention the cost of an education keeps going up, less people are taking the risk of getting 30-40k in debt in the hopes of a job one day.

Also, the answer can't be that everyone get a high skilled job, bcause there is not enough for everyone.

There is also the matter of technological advances. Less people can do the same job due to factors having nothing to do with the human worker. Hardware, software etc etc....is just becoming more efficient, eliminating the need for so many bodies in chairs or factories etc etc......I'd really like a window to peak through from about 100 years from now (assuming we didn't go and blow it up Planet of the Apes style) and see how much farther technology has gone as far as making human bodies less needed in the work force.

The jobs issue is pretty complicated.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Eat the Rich :munchout: ....but didn't the peasants work and pay taxes?

Somebody holding you to your position in life?...or you just want a shortcut to someone elses?

I want a million dollars....and a pony

Wow this is what you respond with? Really?

---------- Post added October-9th-2012 at 06:26 AM ----------

I think the dilemma is, that for unskilled labor, those types of jobs are realistically never coming back to America unless society would be willing to have a "race to the bottom" as far as working conditions go. As long as it benefits an employer to pay folks .25 a day, no benefits, OT pay etc etc...why would they ever do business in this country?

We were sold a bill of goods 30 years ago that outsourcing the labor jobs was good because it would open the door for the higher skilled jobs here. The problem with that though is one it requires higher education, often in specialized fields, and since our country seems to be valuing education at an all-time low, not to mention the cost of an education keeps going up, less people are taking the risk of getting 30-40k in debt in the hopes of a job one day.

Also, the answer can't be that everyone get a high skilled job, bcause there is not enough for everyone.

There is also the matter of technological advances. Less people can do the same job due to factors having nothing to do with the human worker. Hardware, software etc etc....is just becoming more efficient, eliminating the need for so many bodies in chairs or factories etc etc......I'd really like a window to peak through from about 100 years from now (assuming we didn't go and blow it up Planet of the Apes style) and see how much farther technology has gone as far as making human bodies less needed in the work force.

The jobs issue is pretty complicated.

I agree with you completely, and sold a bill of goods we were. And in response we get "oh you just want to eat he rich".

[RedskinsFan44]

Take less profits simply to create jobs?....you being serious?

As I understand it U S corporations are sitting on 2 trillion. The argument for lower taxes has traditionally been that the extra money doesn't go into the pockets of the wealthy, but rather is used to grow the economy. You seem to be disputing that notion.

[AsburySkinsFan]

As I understand it U S corporations are sitting on 2 trillion. The argument for lower taxes has traditionally been that the extra money doesn't go into the pockets of the wealthy, but rather is used to grow the economy. You seem to be disputing that notion.

We were lied to. We were told that those Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy were for the job creators to make more jobs....well....they didn't. It was the lie we were told by the politicians in oorder to keep us from throwing them out on their butts for giving he rich MORE tax breaks.

[Elessar78]

US News:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/05/03/do-lower-taxes-create-jobs-lets-look-at-the-states

How some states with low taxes generate healthy incomes for residents

A few states—Alaska, Nevada, Florida, Wyoming, and New Hampshire—impose very low tax rates yet their residents enjoy solid mid-range incomes. Do these states blaze a trail that other states can follow?

Unfortunately these states' success is tough to copy. Both Alaska and Wyoming have abundant and valuable natural resources (energy and minerals) coupled with small populations and little need for public services. Nevada, Florida, and Wyoming benefit greatly from tourism as well. And New Hampshire gets a free ride from Massachusetts-based high tech companies without paying the corresponding taxes.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Is a Flat Tax a Good Idea?]

How do low taxes really affect growth in income?

A new study by the Institute on Taxation and Economy Policy provides additional perspective. Researchers at this respected, progressive-leaning group looked at the net change in income from 2001 to 2010. They compared the nine states with the highest income tax against the nine states with the lowest income tax. The results, in the chart below, show that the states with the highest taxes actually had the strongest economies throughout a difficult decade.

The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-economic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds/262438/

"In 1990, President George H. W. Bush raised taxes, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 2001 and 2003, President Bush cut taxes, and we faced a disappointing expansion followed by a Great Recession.

Does this story prove that raising taxes helps GDP? No. Does it prove that cutting taxes hurts GDP? No.

But it does suggest that there is a lot more to an economy than taxes, and that slashing taxes is not a guaranteed way to accelerate economic growth."

[AsburySkinsFan]

Lies, lies lies I tell you all lies! Friedman must be obeyed! Homage must be given. Taxes must be lowered. Texas must be followed. Braaaaaaaains! Braaaaaains!

[zoony]

Lies, lies lies I tell you all lies! Friedman must be obeyed! Homage must be given. Taxes must be lowered. Texas must be followed. Braaaaaaaains! Braaaaaains!

To the extent that they read about Friedman on their blogs. Bring up TARP, and they don't know what you mean.

[twa]

As I understand it U S corporations are sitting on 2 trillion. The argument for lower taxes has traditionally been that the extra money doesn't go into the pockets of the wealthy, but rather is used to grow the economy. You seem to be disputing that notion.

Is that the money largely made overseas?

the argument I traditionally hear is why would they not hire here to make money, perhaps because for many the major profits are made elsewhere?

many of ya'll are highly educated.... why would they not create more jobs here to profit?

Why would they create jobs here for less profit?

how you set the table matters