If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Two new workers are being added to the population for every one job that is created. The only direction Obama has the economy moving is backward   (finance.townhall.com) divider line 250
    More: Sad, obama  
•       •       •

885 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Jul 2012 at 11:42 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



250 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-09 08:20:34 AM
And yet, they don't want birth control...
 
2012-07-09 08:43:14 AM
I get so confused, when jobs are growing it has nothing to do with the president and when jobs are shrinking or not enough it's all the president's fault. So subs how deep are you with your cognitive dissonance disorder?
 
2012-07-09 08:43:52 AM
31 (as of Wednesday) votes to repeal health care reform. How many jobs bills?
 
2012-07-09 08:51:30 AM
It's a shame we didn't pass the GOP jobs bill last year. The poor darlings were too busy waging a war on women to push it forward, I guess. But you've got to have priorities.
 
2012-07-09 08:51:42 AM

Zalan: 31 (as of Wednesday) votes to repeal health care reform. How many jobs bills?


31, obviously.
 
2012-07-09 09:05:28 AM
The republicans want smaller government, which means laying off government workers (which we've been doing). They then complain about decreases in total jobs. Fact is, the private sector is improving rather well and the drag on jobs #'s are the layoffs of government employees.

/farking cognitive dissonance
 
2012-07-09 09:09:27 AM
I guess we haven't given the job creators enough incentive to start creating jobs.
 
2012-07-09 09:13:09 AM
As long as employers can keep squeezing more labor out of the same (or fewer) workers, they will continue to do so -- no matter how many tax cuts you throw at them.
 
2012-07-09 09:32:13 AM
Article fails to mention people leaving the work force.

If the U3 is holding at 8.2% (I think that the current rate) it means that for every 1 job created, 2 people are entering the job market but 1 person is also leaving the job market (retiring most likely). The author skipped that part.

That means you are only holding your ground. You could compare that to other countries, you could look at the overall trend since Obama took over (i.e., the U3 was at 10% in October 2009 when Obama passed his first budget).

The reality is the GOP have managed to block Obama from doing anything meaningful in terms of job creation and therefore have prevented a stronger recovery which would have been fairly simple to accomplish.
 
2012-07-09 09:50:32 AM
Put those newborn babies to work!
farking freeloaders! WAAAH WAAHH! STFU get off the tit and get a job!
 
2012-07-09 09:53:54 AM
The obvious solution is to simply go to war with Eastasia, institute a draft, which will employ millions, as well as the factory workers to make munitions and equipment. Total employment, and when we seize the new lands, we put them to the sword and give the stuff to the Job Creators who will then laud out the goodies to the populace in a continuous trickle down effect which will obviously pay for all this.

Duh.

History. How does it work again? Where have we seen this NOT work, ever?
 
2012-07-09 09:54:33 AM
Why has Obama failed to personally kill of these new workers?
 
2012-07-09 10:15:14 AM

CPT Ethanolic: The republicans want smaller government, which means laying off government workers (which we've been doing). They then complain about decreases in total jobs. Fact is, the private sector is improving rather well and the drag on jobs #'s are the layoffs of government employees.

/farking cognitive dissonance


All the fake "conservatives" who moan about Obama's job programs should be beaten with this chart:

graphics8.nytimes.com
Source: New York Times, 5/4/12.
 
2012-07-09 10:17:20 AM

hubiestubert: The obvious solution is to simply go to war with Eastasia, institute a draft, which will employ millions, as well as the factory workers to make munitions and equipment. Total employment, and when we seize the new lands, we put them to the sword and give the stuff to the Job Creators who will then laud out the goodies to the populace in a continuous trickle down effect which will obviously pay for all this.

Duh.

History. How does it work again? Where have we seen this NOT work, ever?


Or build a world class renewable energy infrastructure. Either way.
 
2012-07-09 10:23:45 AM

James F. Campbell: As long as employers can keep squeezing more labor out of the same (or fewer) workers, they will continue to do so -- no matter how many tax cuts you throw at them.


You have been increasing efficiency through automation for over two hundred years. Employee productivity has also been increasing like crazy. After a while that shiat is going to catch up with you. The idea that a +90% employment should be the target is an outdated construct.

Who's to say that a society can't operate well at 80%, 70%, or 60% employment.

40 hours a week is an outdated concept also. It should be a 4 day, 9 hour a day, 36 hour work week for starters. Increase benefitis for part time workers also.

Retirement age should be lowered, not raised (or at least leave it alone). Institute 12 months maternity leave for either parent.

You can do whatever you want and unemployment will never drop below 6% again and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
 
2012-07-09 10:28:05 AM

mrshowrules: Retirement age should be lowered, not raised (or at least leave it alone).


So, take millions of workers in their early 60s, and tell them to just hang it up and start collecting their benefits earlier. What could possibly go wrong? All that money will come from somewhere.

We've barely moved the retirement age from the New Deal era, where it was the "you're lucky to live past this point" line. We've added 15-20 years of lifespan, and essentially told people that they don't have to work during those extra years.

People in their 50s and 60s are much healthier than they were a generation or two ago. They're perfectly capable of pitching in.
 
2012-07-09 10:28:10 AM
Two new herps are being added to the Fema camps for every one derp that is teabagged. The only erection 0bama has is the labotomy having ass-backward.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-09 10:30:08 AM

mrshowrules: James F. Campbell: As long as employers can keep squeezing more labor out of the same (or fewer) workers, they will continue to do so -- no matter how many tax cuts you throw at them.

You have been increasing efficiency through automation for over two hundred years. Employee productivity has also been increasing like crazy. After a while that shiat is going to catch up with you. The idea that a +90% employment should be the target is an outdated construct.

Who's to say that a society can't operate well at 80%, 70%, or 60% employment.

40 hours a week is an outdated concept also. It should be a 4 day, 9 hour a day, 36 hour work week for starters. Increase benefitis for part time workers also.

Retirement age should be lowered, not raised (or at least leave it alone). Institute 12 months maternity leave for either parent.

You can do whatever you want and unemployment will never drop below 6% again and that's not necessarily a bad thing.


It's going to happen anyway. Many workers today could be easily replaced by technology.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-09 10:34:10 AM

chimp_ninja: mrshowrules: Retirement age should be lowered, not raised (or at least leave it alone).

So, take millions of workers in their early 60s, and tell them to just hang it up and start collecting their benefits earlier. What could possibly go wrong? All that money will come from somewhere.

We've barely moved the retirement age from the New Deal era, where it was the "you're lucky to live past this point" line. We've added 15-20 years of lifespan, and essentially told people that they don't have to work during those extra years.

People in their 50s and 60s are much healthier than they were a generation or two ago. They're perfectly capable of pitching in.


Yes, if we had a labor shortage we would need them to "pitch in". But we don't need them to pitch in, we don't have enough work to go around.
 
2012-07-09 10:42:19 AM

chimp_ninja: mrshowrules: Retirement age should be lowered, not raised (or at least leave it alone).

So, take millions of workers in their early 60s, and tell them to just hang it up and start collecting their benefits earlier. What could possibly go wrong? All that money will come from somewhere.

We've barely moved the retirement age from the New Deal era, where it was the "you're lucky to live past this point" line. We've added 15-20 years of lifespan, and essentially told people that they don't have to work during those extra years.

People in their 50s and 60s are much healthier than they were a generation or two ago. They're perfectly capable of pitching in.


It would apply (it should always apply) to the person entering the workforce today. Also, 5 years is a big chunk. First, you want to make sure people are not working pass 65 for economic reasons. Then you can real it back as appropriate. People will have to pay more money while they are working.

However, their is a simpler approach to the entire entitlement system called the social credit system. It does away with the whole concept of retirement age, unemployment , welfare, food stamps.

Every adult should be paid a fixed sustenance allowance every month. Let's say $800 for argument's sake. It is indexed to the cost of living. No application process, no eligibility requirements. Billionaires will get it, workers will get it, and unemployed will get it. It is the only social payment made so you could managed it through the IRS and likely eliminate nearly half of the Government associated with social assistance.

If you want to work 10, 20 or 40 hours a week to supplement it, that's nobody's business but your own. You want to retire when you or 20, 50 or 80 no problem.
 
2012-07-09 10:56:38 AM
I don't get conservatives. They want public sector workers to be laid off and then b*tch when unemployment increases.
 
2012-07-09 11:13:28 AM

hubiestubert: The obvious solution is to simply go to war with Eastasia, institute a draft, which will employ millions, as well as the factory workers to make munitions and equipment. Total employment, and when we seize the new lands, we put them to the sword and give the stuff to the Job Creators who will then laud out the goodies to the populace in a continuous trickle down effect which will obviously pay for all this.

Duh.

History. How does it work again? Where have we seen this NOT work, ever?


Late 18th century French History is becoming more relevant every day.
 
2012-07-09 11:43:50 AM
Absolutely right, Townhall, we should hand the ball back to the Republicans that were actually losing jobs.
 
2012-07-09 11:44:55 AM
moar tax cuts and unfunded wars is apparently the answer.
 
2012-07-09 11:46:36 AM

mrshowrules: Every adult should be paid a fixed sustenance allowance every month. Let's say $800 for argument's sake. It is indexed to the cost of living. No application process, no eligibility requirements. Billionaires will get it, workers will get it, and unemployed will get it. It is the only social payment made so you could managed it through the IRS and likely eliminate nearly half of the Government associated with social assistance.

If you want to work 10, 20 or 40 hours a week to supplement it, that's nobody's business but your own. You want to retire when you or 20, 50 or 80 no problem.


I don't think the Bill Gates' and Mitt Romney's in the US can live with that sort of cut to their government welfare.
 
2012-07-09 11:47:02 AM

coco ebert: I don't get conservatives. They want public sector workers to be laid off and then b*tch when unemployment increases.


The best part (besides forever): they claim that government is too big, and when Obama shrinks it... job killer!

To truly prove that they are racist douchebags, Obama needs to be Schroedinger's candidate like Romney. Adopt all positions, and then see how the GOP reacts. They will either have all their heads explode or they'll try to adopt a third viewpoint when only two viewpoints are theoretically possible. Either way, that proves it.
 
2012-07-09 11:47:16 AM
Republicans got us into this mess, and they will try everything to make sure we stay here.

/Vote Republican
 
2012-07-09 11:47:39 AM
So, tax cuts for the rich? Again?
 
2012-07-09 11:48:04 AM
Sounds like we should lower the burden on those job creators. Simply posting record profits isn't good enough!
 
2012-07-09 11:49:29 AM

GoodyearPimp: mrshowrules: Every adult should be paid a fixed sustenance allowance every month. Let's say $800 for argument's sake. It is indexed to the cost of living. No application process, no eligibility requirements. Billionaires will get it, workers will get it, and unemployed will get it. It is the only social payment made so you could managed it through the IRS and likely eliminate nearly half of the Government associated with social assistance.

If you want to work 10, 20 or 40 hours a week to supplement it, that's nobody's business but your own. You want to retire when you or 20, 50 or 80 no problem.

I don't think the Bill Gates' and Mitt Romney's in the US can live with that sort of cut to their government welfare.


Exactly.
 
2012-07-09 11:49:40 AM

Epoch_Zero: Sounds like we should lower the burden on those job creators. Simply posting record profits isn't good enough!


But they're going to invest! They'll invest! C'mon, just give them time, they'll invest! (around 1/20/12 or 1/20/16 or whenever we're stupid enough to go GOP again).
 
2012-07-09 11:52:00 AM

Sleeping Monkey: So, tax cuts for the rich? Again?


also get rid of NPR and Planned Parenthood.
 
2012-07-09 11:53:47 AM

coeyagi: Epoch_Zero: Sounds like we should lower the burden on those job creators. Simply posting record profits isn't good enough!

But they're going to invest! They'll invest! C'mon, just give them time, they'll invest! (around 1/20/12 or 1/20/16 or whenever we're stupid enough to go GOP again).


1/20/13 or 1/20/17 :P
 
2012-07-09 11:54:25 AM

qorkfiend: coeyagi: Epoch_Zero: Sounds like we should lower the burden on those job creators. Simply posting record profits isn't good enough!

But they're going to invest! They'll invest! C'mon, just give them time, they'll invest! (around 1/20/12 or 1/20/16 or whenever we're stupid enough to go GOP again).

1/20/13 or 1/20/17 :P


Thank you, I need more coffee.
 
2012-07-09 11:55:16 AM

mauricecano: I get so confused, when jobs are growing it has nothing to do with the president and when jobs are shrinking or not enough it's all the president's fault. So subs how deep are you with your cognitive dissonance disorder?


I get confused too.

Somebody walks around claiming it's not his fault and he's not responsible for it while simultaneously taking credit for everything that happens and claiming it was the result of his policies.

I also get confused when 315,000 jobs created is a bad thing that you should be criticized for talking about while 80,000 jobs in the same time frame is a good thing you should be proud of.

I'm also confused how 4 trillion in deficit over 8 years is terrible and unpatriotic while 5 trillion in debt in 3 1/2 years is perfectly acceptable.

I'm also confused sending tax payer money over seas as part of a stimulus package is good and works wonderfully while doing the same thing with your own money in private investment is bad.
 
2012-07-09 11:57:43 AM

chimp_ninja: All the fake "conservatives" who moan about Obama's job programs should be beaten with this chart:


So would you just wrap the chart around a bat?
 
2012-07-09 11:57:49 AM

coeyagi: Epoch_Zero: Sounds like we should lower the burden on those job creators. Simply posting record profits isn't good enough!

But they're going to invest! They'll invest! C'mon, just give them time, they'll invest! (around 1/20/12 or 1/20/16 or whenever we're stupid enough to go GOP again).


a.abcnews.com

"But you don't understand the Job Creators like I do. He told me I get hit like this because of what you do, so it's all YOUR fault he does this. I'm going back to him, you can't stop me, I know what's best for me, you don't know what's best for me, he makes me happy and protects me, etc."
 
2012-07-09 11:59:59 AM

CPT Ethanolic: The republicans want smaller government, which means laying off government workers (which we've been doing). They then complain about decreases in total jobs. Fact is, the private sector is improving rather well and the drag on jobs #'s are the layoffs of government employees.

/farking cognitive dissonance


Smaller government? That is all talk. The government's rate of growth is about equal regardless of who is in office. They just each focus on different aspects such as social programs or military programs.
 
2012-07-09 12:01:20 PM
The only way government can create jobs is by hiring people. If you really do embrace the idea that government isn't the solution to every problem, then you really can't blame Obama for unenployment.
 
2012-07-09 12:03:42 PM

randomjsa: I'm also confused how 4 trillion in deficit over 8 years is terrible and unpatriotic while 5 trillion in debt in 3 1/2 years is perfectly acceptable.


Considering even the Cato Institute points out that the first fiscal year of a president's term is budgeted by the previous one, and you've been told of this before, I can understand why you'd be confused.

You don't have the ability to integrate facts into your world-view. It's the kind of mentality you get when people get angry at the emergency services that arrive at the scene of a tragedy AFTER the incident has happened. It's a little sad.

/"Daniel J. Mitchell is a top expert on tax reform and supply-side tax policy. Mitchell is a strong advocate of a flat tax and international tax competition. Prior to joining Cato, Mitchell was a senior fellow with The Heritage Foundation, and an economist for Senator Bob Packwood and the Senate Finance Committee. He also served on the 1988 Bush/Quayle transition team and was Director of Tax and Budget Policy for Citizens for a Sound Economy. His articles can be found in such publications as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Investor's Business Daily, and Washington Times. He is a frequent guest on radio and television and a popular speaker on the lecture circuit. Mitchell holds bachelor's and master's degrees in economics from the University of Georgia and a Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University". And HE would probably call you a partisan dumbass.
 
2012-07-09 12:04:41 PM
 
2012-07-09 12:04:42 PM

randomjsa: mauricecano: I get so confused, when jobs are growing it has nothing to do with the president and when jobs are shrinking or not enough it's all the president's fault. So subs how deep are you with your cognitive dissonance disorder?

I get confused too.

Somebody walks around claiming it's not his fault and he's not responsible for it while simultaneously taking credit for everything that happens and claiming it was the result of his policies.

I also get confused when 315,000 jobs created is a bad thing that you should be criticized for talking about while 80,000 jobs in the same time frame is a good thing you should be proud of.

I'm also confused how 4 trillion in deficit over 8 years is terrible and unpatriotic while 5 trillion in debt in 3 1/2 years is perfectly acceptable.

I'm also confused sending tax payer money over seas as part of a stimulus package is good and works wonderfully while doing the same thing with your own money in private investment is bad.


The rest of your tome could have been accurate (ha!) but I scanned and saw this and stopped reading to a high toxicity level of bullshiat.

//If you use Fox News facts as actual facts, you get flagged. Sorry, bro.
 
2012-07-09 12:04:52 PM
He has a point, though. How many months has it been since you saw a news item where someone "went postal" and wasted a bunch of co-workers? We clearly need to encourage workers to off their co-workers, as the death benefits are a lot lower than their long-term pension benefits. And I believe that Townhall staffers should volunteer to lead the way and show us how it's done.
 
2012-07-09 12:06:32 PM

mrshowrules: Every adult should be paid a fixed sustenance allowance every month. Let's say $800 for argument's sake. It is indexed to the cost of living. No application process, no eligibility requirements. Billionaires will get it, workers will get it, and unemployed will get it. It is the only social payment made so you could managed it through the IRS and likely eliminate nearly half of the Government associated with social assistance.


Sign me up, but how in the hell are we going to pay for that?
 
2012-07-09 12:07:00 PM

Sgt Stubby: Well, the polls agree...


Funny enough, Fox News is the #1 rated cable news channel.

Funny enough, Fox News viewers are the least informed.

It took like 3.8 seconds to debunk your silliness.

Anything else, Ric Romero?
 
2012-07-09 12:07:14 PM
My wife's grandfather passed away in January. He was a marine that fought in WW2 and was at Iwo Jima. While cleaning out his house after his passing we found all his old materials from the civilian conservation corps. At 16 he joined up during the Great Depression because, like everyone else who was jobless at the time, he needed to do whatever work he could to help support his family. Isn't it a complete shame and embarrassment to his generation that unemployed people feel far too entitled to do that type of thing? Though I guess even if you could get the government to bring back programs like that, the Republicans would cry socialism. But if people would shut the hell up and just nut-up once again with the real spirit that made this nation great we could probably put all the unemployed folks back to work repairing our ailing infrastructure rather than paying them to sit on their asses and giving tax breaks to the super wealthy to bribe them to "create jobs." It makes me sad that he died at 93 watching the country collectively whine about the current situation when he spent his life busting his hump and dodging bullets to fix worse ones.
 
2012-07-09 12:07:48 PM

randomjsa: I get confused...


Yeah, we know.
 
2012-07-09 12:07:54 PM

Kazrath: The government's rate of growth is about equal regardless of who is in office.


Nope.
bainbridgeforobama.files.wordpress.com

Also, in direct correlation, there has been less spending under Obama than under Bush, his father, or Reagan:
freethoughtblogs.com
 
2012-07-09 12:08:04 PM

Sgt Stubby: Well, the polls agree...


The Scott Rasmussen owned Pulse Opinion Research poll finds bad news for Obama. Shocked. I am shocked.
 
2012-07-09 12:09:20 PM
coeyagi, my comment didn't link to FOX news.
 
Displayed 50 of 250 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report