Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
More great economic news.


Evil Fox News Link

Jobless rate rises to 8.3 percent, hiring picks up but still falling short

The unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3 percent in July, reflecting a stagnant economic picture as hiring improved but not by enough to make a dent in the sea of unemployed Americans.

The Labor Department report, in a glimmer of positive news after three straight months of dismal jobs numbers, showed that hiring reached its best level since February, with 163,000 jobs added.

But the number brings the economy back to treading-water status. The economy added an average of 151,000 jobs a month this year, roughly the same as last year's pace. That's not enough to satisfy the 12.8 million Americans who are unemployed. It would take 250,000 new jobs a month to rapidly bring the unemployment rate down.

With the rate rising from 8.2 percent to 8.3 percent, Republicans amped up their criticism of President Obama's stewardship Friday.

"Today's increase in the unemployment rate is a hammer blow to struggling middle-class families," Mitt Romney said in a statement.

Speaking later in North Las Vegas, he called the sustained high unemployment an "extraordinary record of failure."

"That's the longest period of time, 42 months ... we've had unemployment above 8 percent in American history," Romney said.

Both sides are to using the report to double down on their respective tax plans. House Speaker John Boehner said "any new job creation is welcome news," but that unemployment above 8 percent makes it "insane to raise taxes on small businesses."

Republicans want to extend the Bush-era tax rates for all Americans; Obama and congressional Democrats largely want to extend them for those making less than $250,000, letting rates rise for top earners.

Obama, speaking just minutes after Romney, said Friday that raising taxes on the middle class is "the last thing that we should be doing."

He noted that the jobs report means the economy has created 4.5 million new jobs in the last 29 months, and 1.1 million this year.

"But let's acknowledge we've still got too many folks out there who are looking for work," Obama said.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi touted the fact that July marked the 29th straight month of private sector job growth.

"Last month, 163,000 jobs were created despite Republicans' refusal to work with President Obama and Democrats to create jobs, grow our economy, and ensure the economic security of our middle class," she said. "With too many Americans still out of work, the message remains clear: we must do more."

The government uses two surveys to measure employment. A survey of businesses showed job gains. The unemployment rate comes from a survey of households, which showed fewer people had jobs. Economists say the business survey is more reliable.

Investors appeared pleased with the report. Futures tracking the Standard & Poor's 500 index and the Dow Jones industrial average gained about 1 percent. The stock market is coming off four days of losses. Yields on government bonds also rose after the report came out as investors moved money out of low-risk assets.

A better outlook on hiring could prompt the Federal Reserve to hold off taking more action to spur growth. The U.S. central bank, which ended a two-day policy meeting Wednesday, signaled in a statement a growing inclination to take further steps if hiring doesn't pick up.

The job gains were broad-based. Manufacturing added 25,000 jobs, the most since March. Restaurants and bars added 29,000. Retailers hired 7,000 more workers. Education and health services gained 38,000. Governments cut 9,000 positions.

Average hourly wages also increased by 2 cents. Over the past year, wages have increased 1.7 percent -- matching the rate of inflation.
Despite July's job gains, the economy remains weak more than three years after economists declared the recession had ended in June 2009. Growth slowed to an annual rate of 1.5 percent in the April-June quarter, down from 2 percent in the first quarter and 4.1 percent in the final three months of 2011.

Manufacturing activity shrank for the second straight month in July, a private survey said Wednesday. Consumer confidence improved slightly last month but remains weak.

Rising pessimism about the future is taking a toll on businesses and consumers, many economists say. Europe's financial crisis has weakened that region's economy, hurting U.S. exports. Worries have also intensified that the U.S. economy will fall off a "fiscal cliff" at the end of the year. That's when tax increases and deep spending cuts will take effect unless Congress reaches a budget deal. A recession could follow, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned.

Americans are responding by spending less and saving more. A big reason growth slowed in the second quarter was that consumer spending, which accounts for roughly 70 percent of economic activity, slowed to an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. That was down from 2.4 percent in the first quarter.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
I still just can't grasp the "163,000 jobs were created last month), yet unemployment went up........concept.

If 163,000 were created, yet unemployment went up......DESPITE the fact that many unemployed were dropped off the unemployment figure............then we had a net loss of jobs yet again.

Unemployment went UP. Why do they try the "new jobs were created" crap?

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
D
Legend
Offline
Legend
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
I *think* it means about 180,000 old jobs were "un-created". Just a guess.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Not exactly.

Every month more people enter the job market. The labor force is expanding almost constantly. Kids reaching an age where they can work full time, immigration, etc.) Because of this, the US job market needs to create about 200,000 jobs per month just to keep pace. If it doesn't then the labor participation rate drops.

The unemployment rate is really only a measure of people who were working within a certain timeframe, but who are no longer working. If they expire that timeframe, they no longer exist to the unemployment system.

If the system were to take into account all of those who want to work but can't find jobs, and who have expired their unemployment benefits, the unemplyment rate would be somewhere between 11-13%,


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
P
PDR Offline
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
It's not going to stop.

Between technological advancement, outsourcing and a shift from a production economy to a speculative one, our country's need for human capital has dwindled, and will continue to do so.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
D
Legend
Offline
Legend
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,404
Man, it's been speculative for a while. Just look at how temperamental our stock market has been since someone merely mentioned the word "ethanol" 8 years ago.


Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown

#gmstrong
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
This is a liberal biased report that twists the numbers to show a lower unemployment than what it really is.



The REAL unemployment rate is 59.2.

DAMN YOU OBAMA!!!


King


You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
D
Legend
Offline
Legend
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
'Real' unemployment rate is 14.9%.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48468748

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
I'm waiting for someone to come along and tell us all how NBC is a tool of the evil right wing ........

On a more serious note, this is horrible news. Hell, I thought that 11-14% was bad. We cannot afford 4 more years. This President's need to abuse certain energy segments like drilling, pipelines, and coal has forced many into unemployment. Obamacare has also caused many lower end entry level jobs to dry up ... especially full time positions. That's just 2 things that have killed jobs, and the blood is all over the President's hands.


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
D
Legend
Offline
Legend
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Meanwhile, because Obama blocked the Keystone pipeline project from Alberta to Texas, the Canadians are now negotiating with the Chinese for the rights to their oil. The only difference (to Canada) is that this pipeline will go across Canada to British Columbia.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46181932/ns/...ada-eyes-china/


The Keystone XL project would have created 20,000 jobs - according to the Wall Street Journal - in this country.

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120110-705187.html

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,865
Legend
Online
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,865
Just Clicking

Just so you guys know,, todays unemployment rate isn't the worst ever.

The highest unemployment rate in US history was in 1982, nov. & dec. at 10.80.

1982-11 10.80 10.8
1982-12 10.80 10.8
1983-01 10.40 10.4
1983-02 10.40 10.4
1983-03 10.30 10.3
1983-04 10.20 10.2
1983-05 10.10 10.1
1983-06 10.10 10.1
1983-07 9.40
1983-08 9.50
1983-09 9.20
Sources: http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

During the Reagan Trickle down years..

the worst ever was 1932 when we hit 23.6% which was under Herbert Hoover.

Not that anything about who was president means much when it's a republican.. only when it's a Democrat.

Last edited by Damanshot; 08/04/12 11:29 AM.

#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
P
PDR Offline
Legend
Offline
Legend
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
It's foolish to think that this is a political or presidential matter.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,865
Legend
Online
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,865
Quote:

It's foolish to think that this is a political or presidential matter.




Of course it is, but who do people blame when unemployment goes up? the President. Who do they praise when it goes down,, American Business.

The unemployment rate is probably never going to fall below 7 again anyway given how much outsourcing is going on. I talked to a lady in boston (I have an opening up there for an HP Technical Software Architect with Presales experience).. she fits the tech side, but is weak on the presales side of things. Anyway, she's losing her job with a financial investment firm because they are outsourcing over 100 IT Jobs to india.. About 10 of the current staff have been asked to remain, only 5 are because the jobs are moving from boston to someplace about an hour or so north to New Hampshire.

essentially, throwing 95 people out of work.. these are 50 to 100+ K per year jobs. Not your typical 14 to 19 dollar an hour job that most of the job losses fall into.

Reason they are moving the jobs? Lower overall cost and they get some kinda incentive on Federal taxes that I don't understand.

Make of it what you will. dispute if if you want. it's what it is. and that's the way it's working.

not just GOOD paying american jobs are leaving,, GREAT paying american jobs are leaving.

Romney can get elected,, he can talk the talk all he wants, but he won't be able to fix it any better than Obama or the next 10 presidents.

You wanna fix unemployment,, then make the rules favor employing americans.

Otherwise, we're doomed... Period, end of story.


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Quote:

It's foolish to think that this is a political or presidential matter.




Actually, it's not.

I gave 2 examples of where the President has directly impacted jobs in a negative manner through his policies. There are undoubtedly more than that. However coal regulations and Obamacare have definitely destroyed jobs.

Add in uncertainty over taxes and employee costs and it's hard for small businesses to expand and grow. (and add employees) I don't know what your background is, and if you have ever run a business or not, but increasing the cost per employee to an employer will absolutely supress hiring for many smaller to mid size businesses. If a small business is making $15,000 profit per month, (or $180,000 per year) and has 50 full time employees, now he has, at least, an additional $100,000 in employee costs per year.(if he did not offer health insurance in the past)

That is cutting his profits by more than half. It means that the employer will probably cut jobs, and reinvestment and expansion will also be cut. I don't know what planet you live on if you think that this won't have an effect on hiring and full time scheduling.


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
I'm pretty sure it was the president who put the moratorium on off shore drilling too which cost an estimated 12000 jobs.


#GMSTRONG
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
D
Legend
Offline
Legend
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Quote:

Not that anything about who was president means much when it's a republican.. only when it's a Democrat.




The man who is president right now happens to be a Democrat. In fairness, you have no idea what anyone here might have had to say during the Reagan Administration (if they were even around for it). I was around for the Reagan years, and I can tell you that his administration had to deal with a 3-headed monster - double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, and double-digit unemployment. It was worse than now, and it didn't get better right away, but it trended upward fairly quickly, and the improvements were visible. Our economy today is trending downward, and many are now forecasting a second, worse, recession without having had a real recovery in between.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
D
Legend
Offline
Legend
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Quote:

It's foolish to think that this is a political or presidential matter.




Blocking the Keystone XL pipeline project was a policy decision that directly impacted employment. The 20,000 jobs quoted in the WSJ is a conservative estimate. Some had it closer to 100,000. Employment concerns aside, wouldn't reducing our dependence on Saudi, and other Middle East countrys' oil be a smart foreign policy move? Does helping China get a stranglehold on Canadian oil reserves seem like a good idea?

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,865
Legend
Online
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,865
Quote:

Quote:

Not that anything about who was president means much when it's a republican.. only when it's a Democrat.




The man who is president right now happens to be a Democrat. In fairness, you have no idea what anyone here might have had to say during the Reagan Administration (if they were even around for it). I was around for the Reagan years, and I can tell you that his administration had to deal with a 3-headed monster - double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, and double-digit unemployment. It was worse than now, and it didn't get better right away, but it trended upward fairly quickly, and the improvements were visible. Our economy today is trending downward, and many are now forecasting a second, worse, recession without having had a real recovery in between.




Doesn't matter what Reagan had to deal with (by the way, I loved Reagan) Doesn't matter what he inherited. it's been said a thousand times on here, it doesn't matter what the guy before the current president did, it's the current presidents fault.

Knife cuts both ways..,


#GMSTRONG

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan

"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Quote:

Quote:

It's foolish to think that this is a political or presidential matter.




Blocking the Keystone XL pipeline project was a policy decision that directly impacted employment. The 20,000 jobs quoted in the WSJ is a conservative estimate. Some had it closer to 100,000. Employment concerns aside, wouldn't reducing our dependence on Saudi, and other Middle East countrys' oil be a smart foreign policy move? Does helping China get a stranglehold on Canadian oil reserves seem like a good idea?




Actually according to Politfact - the Pullitzer award-winning fact checking website that statement is FALSE.

Quote:

Backers of a massive oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico are telling voters that it will flood the U.S. with jobs.

President Barack Obama denied a permit to build the 1,700-mile Keystone XL pipeline in January amid bitter debate over whether it would damage environmentally sensitive lands. The pipeline may still win approval, however, and some lawmakers are trying to push it forward.

One of them is U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. In a Feb. 23 speech at Dalton State College, Isakson said the pipeline could employ enough people to populate Decatur.

"From Day One, this project [the Keystone pipeline] would employ 20,000 people in the United States," Isakson said.

This jobs figure is a well-worn talking point for pipeline supporters. Georgia U.S. Reps. Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey used it. U.S. House Speaker John Boehner and House Republican Leader Eric Cantor said it as well.

We decided to take a closer look.

We reviewed news accounts, read analyses of the company’s job creation figures, interviewed a spokesman for TransCanada, the firm hoping to build the pipeline, and consulted critics.

We found that while the TransCanada estimate does say that 20,000 "Americans" will be directly employed by the project, that’s not what the company’s chief executive has said.

Furthermore, TransCanada’s numbers clash with lower estimates from critics and the U.S. Department of State.

TransCanada has said in a press release that those 20,000 jobs include 13,000 for constructing the pipeline and 7,000 to manufacture steel pipes and other equipment. It predicts it will take two years to complete.

But TransCanada’s estimate does not mean they expect 20,000 people to work on the project, a spokesman told us.

The spokesman provided little clarification. Fortunately, a Washington Post interview with TransCanada’s chief executive and an email interview with the economist who helped produce the company’s job creation estimates shed some light on the figure.

Each "job" represents one "job year" or one job lasting for one year, they said.

This means that if a single person works on the project for both years, his or her stint is counted as two "jobs."

This could place the number of actual people employed by the pipeline closer to 10,000, or some 6,500 workers in construction and 3,500 in manufacturing. Not 20,000.

These construction jobs are not permanent, and for the most part, they aren’t local. The positions will disappear when the pipeline is complete. The U.S. Department of State, which is in charge of evaluating the project, estimates that only 10 to 15 percent of these jobs can be filled with workers from communities in the pipeline’s path.

News accounts and independent analyses have explored other shortcomings of TransCanada’s figures. A study released September 2011 by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute determined that the 20,000 jobs figure is "not substantiated."

About 50 percent of the pipe will come from an Arkansas plant owned by Welspun, a company based in India, according to a press release issued by TransCanada. The rest will come from Canada, Italy and India.

In 2009, company officials said that for an earlier phase of the pipeline, it imported bare pipe manufactured overseas. It’s not clear how much finish work the pipe will need once it arrives in the U.S.

We asked TransCanada whether its manufacturing jobs estimates might include foreign workers, but a spokesman did not provide a response.

Other analyses have called into question TransCanada’s jobs figure. A December 2011 report by Bloomberg said the company's estimate that the project would need six or seven construction workers for every mile of the pipeline is higher than the four to five worker average for earlier phases.

An August 2011 estimate published by the State Department said that the project will employ "approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers" in construction jobs.

An independent analysis of TransCanada’s jobs estimates also produced lower numbers.

Using Cornell’s research, William Wade, president of a consulting economics firm, found that the pipeline would create an average of about 16,100 jobs for each of the two years of construction, or 32,200 "job years."

Wade’s figure includes more than the jobs for those who build the pipeline. People such as factory workers and checkout clerks also get jobs when project funds are spent on construction materials and wages.

If Keystone were to create 20,000 job years worth of work in construction alone, then those jobs combined with spinoffs should be much higher than 32,200 job years, Wade said.

"The 20,000 jobs number seems like a mistake. It seems like an overestimate," Wade said.

Our ruling:

Isakson said that Keystone "would employ 20,000 people in the United States." While any construction project creates jobs, the number Isakson uses seems misleadingly high.

Those 20,000 don’t represent actual people, but one job lasting for one year of a two-year project. The number of construction and manufacturing workers may be closer to 10,000, if you accept TransCanada’s estimate.

And there’s strong evidence from credible sources that it may be lower. Finally, it’s an open question how many of the jobs would be in America.

We give Isakson a False.





[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Sorry, but if the infrastructure jobs supposedly created by the Stimulus Law passed by Obama and the Democrats was going to "create jobs", then so would the Keystone pipeline project. The only difference is that the money for Keystone wouldn;t be coming out of the pockets of the taxpayers ..... and that there would definitely and absolutely actually be real jobs created by Keystone.


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
D
Legend
Offline
Legend
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Pulitzer Prize winning Democrat-supporting fact-checker says "False""?

Politifact is NOT the be-all / end-all of political fact checking; they are basically a wing of the DNC. A recent survey of their political "fact-checking" found a 76% false rating for Republican claims and only 22% false ratings for Democrats. Are you buying that? Me neither.

http://oregoncatalyst.com/7461-study-finds-significant-pro-democrat-politifact-bias.html

Nice try.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
Offline
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Did you even read what I posted?

They got their numbers from TransCanada..you know the energy company that owns the Keystone pipeline? What purpose does TransCanada have for underestimating the number of jobs?


[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
D
Legend
Offline
Legend
D
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Politifact gives the jobs claim a "False" because they found someone whose estimate was 19% lower. At the same time, others were estimating way more than 20,000 - some as high as 100,000. I think that speaks more to Politifacts' agenda. I have no idea why TransCanada might lowball their estimate, nor do I see why their estimate should have greater legitimacy than others.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Quote:

Sorry, but if the infrastructure jobs supposedly created by the Stimulus Law passed by Obama and the Democrats was going to "create jobs", then so would the Keystone pipeline project.



That was my first thought. I don't remember anybody within the administration talking about how once a roadway project was done, the workers would again be unemployed... Heck if you worked as a flagman for a week on one of those jobs, they acted as if they had created a permanent upper middle class job.


yebat' Putin
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 2
L
Rookie
Offline
Rookie
L
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 2
As you said in your post, it's really true that each year unemployment rate is increasing continuously so we should maintain our country's economy conditions. 

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Umm ..... why would we want to maintain the policies that have taken us to 8.3%?


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Obama adviser: Jobless rate is really 8.254%
By David Jackson, USA TODAY

Rather than 8.3% -- the rounded-up figure -- Obama economic adviser Alan Krueger writes on the White House website that the real jobless rate is 8.254%.

"The household survey showed that the unemployment rate ticked up to 8.3% in July (or, more precisely, the rate rose from 8.217% in June to 8.254% in July)," wrote Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

He added: "Acting BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) Commissioner John Galvin noted in his statement that the unemployment rate was 'essentially unchanged' from June to July."

We doubt that Republican Mitt Romney and his allies will draw that distinction.

"Today's increase in the unemployment rate is a hammer blow to struggling middle-class families," Romney said in a statement.

Other GOP members mocked Krueger for declaring the jobless rate at 8.254%.

Republican Party spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said, "23 million people struggling for work isn't a rounding error. And the White House's attempts to argue show just how out of touch they are."

Analysts said the (slightly) higher rate results from an increase in people re-entering the job market.

They also noted that the economy created 163,000 jobs in July, exceeding expectations.

"While there is more work that remains to be done, today's employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression," Krueger wrote.

web page

Somebody should tell the Obama administration that its not the numbers to the right of the decimal point that we are worried about, it's the number to the left.


yebat' Putin
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
N
Legend
Offline
Legend
N
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
so, if the jobless rate rises to 8.26% next month, then they just gave an opening to say so with their approval rather than saying it stayed at 8.3%(rather than it sounding silly from the other side).


#gmstrong
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,517
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,517

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
I really, really like Mike Kelly.

I think that he could be a future star (and hopefully a leader) in the Republican Party.

It's also funny that there is so very rarely even applause in the Congress ...... and this guy gets a standing ovation.

You know ..... if Romney wanted a real dark horse running mate who could fire people up and deliver a strong, powerful message, he could do a lot worse than Mike Kelly. Maybe Kelly doesn't have the political experience, but he seems to be a principled guy, and more importantly, a princilped guy who can communicate those principles. To me that's even more important than raw, inside the beltway, experience.


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
P
Dawg Talker
Offline
Dawg Talker
P
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Why couldn't we have a Christie/ Kelly ticket????? man...now that would be worth voting for!!!!


I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...

What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Or how about a Newt/Kelly ticket, with Christie as Secretary of State.


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Quote:

You know ..... if Romney wanted a real dark horse running mate who could fire people up and deliver a strong, powerful message, he could do a lot worse than Mike Kelly.




But I think the rule of thumb the last few decades has been ... appoint a VP signifigantly worse than you, as it diminishes the chances of an assassination attempt.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Quote:

Quote:

You know ..... if Romney wanted a real dark horse running mate who could fire people up and deliver a strong, powerful message, he could do a lot worse than Mike Kelly.




But I think the rule of thumb the last few decades has been ... appoint a VP signifigantly worse than you, as it diminishes the chances of an assassination attempt.



It's also about picking a person who can help you carry a swing state... has nothing to do with picking the best candidate.


yebat' Putin
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
T
All Pro
Offline
All Pro
T
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
Quote:

Politifact gives the jobs claim a "False" because they found someone whose estimate was 19% lower. At the same time, others were estimating way more than 20,000 - some as high as 100,000. I think that speaks more to Politifacts' agenda. I have no idea why TransCanada might lowball their estimate, nor do I see why their estimate should have greater legitimacy than others.





The only place I've seen 100,000 jobs estimated was in a study by the Perryman group (who was commissioned and paid for entirely by TransCanada). Maybe you have another source though.

This study below pretty clearly shows how Perryman's numbers are essentially pulled from thin air. The 100,000 number comes from using a certain number for TransCanada's budget ($7 billion). However, the real amount available for hiring in the US on the pipeline is much less, as $7 billion included work done in other countries, and a large chunk of the money left over is already spent. So the direct jobs will be much less. Also, TransCanada's own estimates to the state department actually show only 5,000 direct, temporary construction jobs.

Further, TransCanada is claiming huge gains in manufacturing of the steel pipe, but their history as well as already in place contracts have them getting most of the steel from India and Russia. The only jobs here would be a relatively small number of temporary fabrication jobs.

To add insult to injury, TransCanada is in part going to use Welspun, an Indian steel corporation whose substandard steel has leaked along the other portions of this pipeline. As a result Welspun is being sued by several parties.

The idea that this will help American energy independence is ridiculous crap TransCanada is trying to sell us. If you look at the map of this pipeline system, right now all the oil in this pipeline flows to refineries in Illinois, Kansas, and Oklahoma, staying in the US. The proposed extension would allow the oil to go to ports in Texas, from which it would be shipped onto the world market, likely to meet demand in Asia. That increased flow to the rest of world will come at the expense of flow into US refineries, and will likely raise US prices. Even raising prices $0.10 per gallon in the Midwest will mean extra billions out of the regional economy.

http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_keystoneXL_Reportpdf.pdf

All the incentive is for TransCanada to overestimate job creation and overstate the influence on "US energy independence" in order to sell this to the American public.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 435
B
All Pro
Offline
All Pro
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 435
Just a rambling. Slightly related to Keystone. Whats killing the economy much more than any policy is high oil prices. When I'm making 45k/yr and putting 100 a week into my 38mpg putt putt mobile to get to work, I have very little to offer in the way of consuming. Which equals less jobs for the other guys which in turn might mean less earnings for me, starting the spiral downward.

Until we find a way to make traveling around cheaper, people wont spend, and we'll be in perpetual recession.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
A
Legend
Offline
Legend
A
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Gas prices make a difference, no doubt - but what's killing the economy is the lack of jobs. Not artificially high paying jobs - but true, decent paying jobs. That is what's killing the economy.

I use, for work, somewhere around 120 gallons of gas a month. If gas prices were $1 a gallon cheaper..........I'd have an extra $120 a month. That's $30 a week. Trust me, that isn't going to change the economy. We need jobs. Decent paying jobs that pay decently not due to some regulation, but due to the productivity of that job.

The regulation is what is driving jobs out of this country.........and yes, to a fair extent, regulation is driving up the cost of gas prices as well.

Seems to me the more gov't. gets involved, the deeper we dig.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,561
B
Legend
Offline
Legend
B
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,561
I agree. It's jobs.

We have a President who is for big government and against business. Hell, this guy even points out that business owners didn't build their business.

You want jobs?? We have to vote this guy out of office.


If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.

GM Strong




[Linked Image]
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
Legend
OP Offline
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,423
He also bemoaned the fact that we are losing government jobs in his infamous "The private sector is doing fine" comment.

The fact is that we have lost employment since he took office. We have fewer jobs today than we had on Jan 20, 2009. So not only have we not added jobs to help those who are unemployed, we also haven't kept pace with the additions to the work force from kids growing up, and from legal immigration.

We have lost some government jobs. That's a good thing. State and local governments are cutting back to help balance their budgets. However, these people cannot find jobs in the private sector, and a big part of the reason why is found in the policies that this President has pursued. He has left tax statuses in limbo until the last second for a couple of years now. He has threatened tax increases on jobs creators. He has added a massive new cost to many employers in the form of Obamacare. Try to find an entry level full time job today. My mom works at Wal Mart, and at her store they have cut back their full time work force, and are hiring only part time now. This is going to be more and more prevalent as the costs hit home for these entry level type employers. If you don't have full time employees, you don't have to pay the huge penalties. Further, he has severely damaged the coal industry, even after initially supporting coal in the last election. Bet those towns in West Virginia who supported Obama were surprised by his "support" of their livelihoods.

Taxes, healthcare, and energy are just 3 areas where Obama has directly, and negatively, impacted employment in this country.


Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.

John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
F
Legend
Offline
Legend
F
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Quote:

He also bemoaned the fact that we are losing government jobs in his infamous "The private sector is doing fine" comment.




Bet he isn't willing to disclose how many of those government jobs that they are losing are at the federal level? I would bet not many, as you said most are at the state level where they are forced to do so to balance state budgets, something the federal government apparently isn't required to do.


We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Unemployment Rate Rises to 8.3%

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5