Hello:

Well, it's NOT who you've been told...

Jobs aren't created because of tax policy, or because of "uncertainty", or because of the deficit.. Jobs are created when corporations can't meet the demands of their market. They only HAVE demand when people are BUYING. People only BUY when they have money in their pocket...

Ergo, CONSUMERS are the job creators... Put more money in THEIR pocket, and jobs will happen. I call it a trickle UP plan. That means we need to do the OPPOSITE of what the wingers are saying.. We need to extend unemployment benefits. We need to start a WPA type work project to repair our infrastructure. We need to invest in green technology. We need to add to our safety net - not take away from it.

To those of you who say we CAN'T add to the deficit now, I remind you that MASSIVE deficit spending, in the midst of the worst depression known to man, not only allowed us to WIN WWII, but it brought us OUT of that depression, and set us off on the greatest economic expansion known to man..

We should DO what we KNOW works, and stop listening to the voo doo economics of the right wing.

excon

People only BUY when they have money in their pocket...

So you are in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts, yes? Low taxes are the best way to keep the money in people's pockets.

That's funny because there is a strong case that government intervention in the economy in the form of tarriffs was the real reason why a small economic downturn turned into a depression in the 1st place.

I'd say that the destruction of the rest of the world economy during and after WWII had a lot to do with our economic rebound .We were kind of the only game in town. It certainly wasn't Roosevelt's spending policies... they extended the Depression at least 4 years. Of course if you listen to Keynsian economists they agree that Roosevelt's policies failed... but only because he didn't go far enough... lol. The recipe to failure is to double down on what has failed in the past.

If your formula worked so well then why didn't almost a Trillion dollars in stimulus spending dent the unemployment figures over the last 2+ years ? Why not just a complete takeover of the economy ? After all ;government command and control has worked so well in the past. Just ask Mao.

If your formula worked so well then why didn't almost a Trillion dollars in stimulus spending dent the unemployment figures over the last 2+ years ?
So you are in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts, yes? Low taxes are the best way to keep the money in people's pockets.Hello again, tom and e:

I'm for DIRECT stimulus... The last stimulus DID work, in the short run, but wasn't large enough. When you inherit a broken down car on the road, and you've managed to get it started and going again, and nearing a garage, you've got to have the money to get the rest of the way, or the car is going to break down again...

In terms of Keynesian economics or not, I don't know. I'm a businessman, not an economist. I can tell the difference between idle spending and investment. Investments PAY off - kind of like our investment in the interstate freeway has.

You SAY you want a businessman to run the country.. Nahhh, you don't.

excon

I still have a job--and I'm working my butt off to keep it, now that I do the work of the 2 other people in my department who were laid off.

I still have a house, because I was careful when I bought and because I made sure my credit rating was good enough to get a decent mortgage---and because I bought a house within my means.

I still have a car, because I carefully saved half the cost of the car before I bought one.

I also paid off all of my debt and held off on having children until I could afford them.

Where's MY freaking reward for being a good citizen? It won't be in extending unemployment for the schmucks that won't take a lower paying job than the one they were laid off from. For example, my company has been looking for 2 managers for over a YEAR. The positions require a master's degree, either in business or in IT. The people qualified for it are used to making 6 digits--and we don't pay even CLOSE to that. But because they THINK they are worth $250k a year, they won't take a $75k a year job instead of sitting on their butts collecting unemployment. Yeah, I REALLY believe that most people are looking for a job rather than sitting on their butts collecting unemployment..

My reward isn't going to trickle down from big companies getting even MORE tax breaks, either.

How about giving money to the people who have actually shown that they can be responsible with it---the middle class worker who is paying their bills and not running up debt?

I still have a job--and I'm working my butt off to keep it, now that I do the work of the 2 other people in my department who were laid off.
What would happen if you got laid off?

I've been headhunted for the last 4 months pretty consistently. While I have no degree, I have experience in a field where there aren't a lot of specialists.

HOWEVER--I'm 5 months pregnant. If I got laid off, I'd probably collect unemployment until the baby was born because regardless that there are laws to prevent it, people just do not hire women who are showing in their pregnancy because they'll be taking 6-12 weeks of leave in their first year of employment. If someone has a need of an employee, they likely don't want them to go on leave for 3 months only a couple months after they are hired.

HOWEVER--I would be looking for a job. I would TAKE a job that was half my current salary if I had to. Any lower than half my current salary, and you're looking at about minimum wage--and I frankly can't survive on minimum wage with a newborn.

I've already updated my resume on the off chance that I am laid off. I've made sure that I am networking with people in my field on a regular basis--because I know I'm not immune to being laid off

But I'm also not sympathetic to those (and I don't know anyone that doesn't know one of these people) who haven't overspent, have terrible debt, and would rather collect unemployment than take a job that isn't as "good" as the one they were laid off from.

The whole point is that NO jobs out there are as good as the ones that people were laid off from. People with high salaries are replaced with people who are willing to take lower salaries.

And frankly, I was laid off during the first part of the economic crash and recession. I had a temp job within 2 weeks, and a permanent job within 6 months. The REASON I had those jobs is because I was willing to WORK for my money. And a lot of people won't take temp jobs (you lose your unemployment when you take them) because they pay no benefits and have half the salary a lot of the time. However, a LOT of companies hire through temp agencies now. My salary is twice what I was making as a temp, because I showed the company I work for that I was willing to work BEFORE they offered me a permanent position.

I think a lot of the people on unemployment have lost sight of the fact that nearly ANY job is better than NO job.

PS--the reason companies keep outsourcing to foreign companies is because they can PAY people less and they WORK more. Americans are pretty snobby about their jobs sometimes.

Synn is 100% correct. The unemployment benefits were extended to 99 weeks. That means there is zero incentive for someone on the benefits to look for work that would likely pay less than they can collect from the government in idle time.Unfortunately ,that is the case in this economy. The jobs available often pay less than the available unemployment check.

Synn instead has to take up the slack . This is a situation that is duplicated all over the country . Synn is in fact having to take on the additional work load .

I guess your unemployment insurance works different than ours. Here you can only get your unemployment insurance if you've worked the minimum amount of weeks, after that it's welfare and that doesn't pay a lot to stay on. Being in techie positions I've been laid off a couple of times and was thankful for the bi-weekly checks as I found something else and played stay-at-home dad (that was the best part). I too have taken on a bigger workload as budgets are reduced but we didn't suffer nearly as badly as you guys did during the meltdown.

You should move to Alberta. Your nation will be the future Saudi Arabia of oil sands.

The sad part is that instead of having a willing customer South ;you'll likely end up selling it to the Chinese. Obama has stalled a potential pipeline to the refineries his whole term.

Nah, I like it where I am. Pipelines have their own issues as do the operations in Alta.

Your unemployment benefits here are based on how long you've worked in the state of MN--how long you've paid in, in other words. It's also based on your salary at the time you were laid off.

So a couple of people I know that had jobs paying over $500k a year were laid off, and are now collecting unemployment, and refuse to look that hard for a job (they'll take one if it falls in their laps, basically) because they make more money in unemployment benefits than they would if they took a job paying half their previous wages.

Which, by the way, is still more than I make in 3 years.

Don't worry America, there will be jobs available soon as their employee (republicans), finish doing the job they were paid to do, destroy any consumer advocates, drive wages and benefits down to third world levels, end all regulations, increase tax breaks and loopholes, get rid of all unions, get a president that they have bought and paid for, to go along with the congress they have bought and paid for, then they will start investing in America again.

That's why we get the same right wing rhetoric about creating jobs, cut taxes for the rich, some MORE, and cut benefits, and wages, for everyone else.

You're dead on EX, lets try some trickle UP economics for a change, and bail out the middle class. Heck everybody else got theirs, and doing just fine thank you. That's what this recession was all about, MO' money for the ones that got all of it any way.

And by the way, conservatism is nothing but slavery with money as the whip. That's why they (corporations) keep you dumb and mad, because truth is, if you thought for yourself, and counted your own money, then you would be a lot more progressive about change, and you wouldn't be screwed by your own ideology.

Dude, if you give more money to the irresponsible they'll spend it all right. If you give it to the responsible like, Synnen and me, we're going to save it or pay down a bill. I'm not going to spend it. People aren't spending because they have no faith in the economy, and the regime in charge has accomplished nothing to change our minds. Lying about the GM and Chrysler bailouts ain't going to cut it.

Update: CNN Poll: Obama approval rating drops as fears of depression rise (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/08/cnn-poll-obama-approval-rating-drops-as-fears-of-depression-rise/)

Hello Synn:

You mistake my plan for sympathy for the unemployed. It's NOT. It's simply the fastest and most efficient way to stimulate the economy so that it improves.. When it improves, it improves for ALL of us.

It's like the investment we made in Chrysler and GM... It worked. Now, I know the right wing is invested in saying that it didn't... But, they're kookoo. Look. I know what a bankrupt company looks like. So do you... That AIN'T them. They've paid back their debt/bailout/investment, and they're making PROFIT. Yes, that investment saved 100's of 1,000's of jobs. We need to do that with the GREEN industry...

excon

Excon--

I'm responsible AND I'm having a baby.

Give me free money, and I'll spend it like mad, because I've already PAID my bills--with the money I've earned. Give me fun money, and I'll have a BLAST spending it.

I'll spend it buying STUFF. I'll spend it investing in funds for my child's future. I'll spend it DOING stuff. I'm the IDEAL person if you want someone to SPEND money.

Me and every other middle class person who already has their sh*t together.

It's like the investment we made in Chrysler and GM.... It worked. Now, I know the right wing is invested in saying that it didn't... But, they're kookoo.

President Obama’s phony accounting on the auto industry bailout (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-phony-accounting-on-the-auto-industry-bailout/2011/06/06/AG3nefKH_blog.html)

"What we found is one of the most misleading collections of assertions we have seen in a short presidential speech. Virtually every claim by the president regarding the auto industry needs an asterisk, just like the fine print in that too-good-to-be-true car loan."

Maybe it kept them going, but why is the president lying about it? Oh, and GM' CEO would love nothing more than another lovely jolt to the consumer's already overly strained pocketbook, a dollar hike in the federal gas tax (http://detnews.com/article/20110607/AUTO01/106070368/1148/rss25). What else would you expect from Government Motors, the company which sold the feds 101 Volts so the feds could save on gas.

Give me free money, and I'll spend it like mad, because I've already PAID my bills--with the money I've earned. Give me fun money, and I'll have a BLAST spending it. Hello again, Synn:

It's not free. People PAID insurance premiums for unemployment coverage... And, it's not fun money. It's a LIFELINE.

But, be that as it may... I've heard you. You talk in the abstract.. And, in the abstract, you're right.. But, where the abstract hits the ground, I want to HEAR you say SCREW the children of the unemployed. Yeah, they're hungry and are going to be homeless. So what? I worked. Their parents didn't. SCREW 'em!

Are you THAT heartless, little miss expectant mother? Me? I have sympathy for hungry children.

excon

Hello again, Synn:

It's not free. People PAID insurance premiums for unemployment coverage... And, it's not fun money. It's a LIFELINE.

But, be that as it may.... I've heard you. You talk in the abstract.. And, in the abstract, you're right.. But, where the abstract hits the ground, I wanna HEAR you say SCREW the children of the unemployed. Yeah, they're hungry and are going to be homeless. So what? I worked. Their parents didn't. SCREW 'em!

Are you THAT heartless, little miss expectant mother? Me?? I have sympathy for hungry children.

excon

They paid for insurance that covered them for a SPECIFIC amount of time. To extend it is to spend taxpayer money, because their insurance policy wasn't paid into calculating the extra YEAR or more that they're getting now.

I'd like to see those people moving into smaller houses that they can actually AFFORD. I'd like to see them stop having cable television and a cell phone for every member of the family. I'd like to see them stop paying for video games, potato chips, and soda. If you don't have a job anymore, how about LIVING like you're poor?

I have plenty of sympathy for hungry children. I give locally to several organizations--in time, money, and items--to make sure that the kids around me have someone who cares about whether they're eating. People who go to CHURCH have resources through their faith to get food for their hungry children. People who make an effort to know their NEIGHBORS get help for their hungry children. People who make an effort to get along with family that they may not like have a resource for feeding their hungry children.

Besides, you weren't really talking about unemployment insurance. That's paid for by employers and employees. You're talking about taxpayer money being given to people to jumpstart the economy.

Give that money to people who have proven they can be RESPONSIBLE for money. That is most DEFINITELY not the people in major debt, in foreclosure, or businesses who needed to be bailed out because they couldn't balance their own stupid budgets.

Am I somewhat heartless? Yup---I admit it, I am. But until we start getting a little heartless with people and FORCE them to take responsibility for their actions, they never WILL make responsible decisions.

Some job creators have a couple of words for the "patriotic millionaires (http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/07/patriotic-millionaires-send-video-message-to-congress-asking-for-higher-taxes/)" asking to be taxed more.

"Don't Tax Me... Shut Up!" (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150621138865284)

No one is preventing these morons from sending their money to the feds, it's time for them to put up AND shut up.

Hello, again, Steve:

It's impossible for right wingers to believe that anybody would vote for the nations interest over their own.

That's a fault that needs fixing...

excon

No one is preventing these morons from sending their money to the feds, it's time for them to put up AND shut up.You don't think they should be allowed to voice their opinions?

It's impossible for right wingers to believe that anybody would vote for the nations interest over their own.

Let me ask, do you suppose there are more liberals than conservatives in the military? I didn't think so, you don't really want to go into putting country before self do you?

I'll help the Patriotic Millionaires out :


How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
There are two ways for you to make a contribution to reduce the debt:

•You can make a contribution online either by credit card, checking or savings account at Pay.gov
•You can write a check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it's a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm)

There is also there a line item on the income tax forms that allow people to contribute more tax $$ if they'd like to.

It's nice that they'd give the shirt of my back to solve the nations fiscal and employment problems.

If YOU want to pay MORE--great!

I already feel like I pay too much to contribute to the welfare of those that contribute little or nothing.

Screw them. I'm not that altruistic.

I still think it would be great if they put it to a PUBLIC vote as to where to spend tax dollars. Make a list of all the areas that money goes to, and let the public choose what percentage of their own contributions goes toward it.

Bet the military, the bloated benefits of the government, things like NASA, and pet projects would lose a LOT of money VERY fast.

I also bet that teachers and schools would get more than they have been.

I ALSO bet that things like "bailouts" would be non-existant.

Got a great way to deal with taxes. Stop the automatic employer withdrawal from the pay check . We should be required to cut a check to the government for taxes due.

I also got a great idea for these so called Patriotic Millionaires. Stop hiring expensive accountants who's only job is to make sure their tax obligation is as small as it can be. File an 1040EZ form yourselves and don't take the allowable deductions .

Here's another useful address for them :

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

What a novel concept; voluntary payment of taxes and even paying what you do not owe as if the government were a charity. I guess that's what happens in basket case economies

What is novel is millionaires who have their wealth sheltered in investments ,sanctimoniously proclaiming their income is undertaxed .

what is novel is millionaires who have their wealth sheltered in investments ,sanctimoniously proclaiming their income is undertaxed .

Give me a break, Tom, we all know taxation is theft. If some dulluded folk feel remorse for lying about their status to the government that is one thing, but taking with one hand and giving back with the other?

Obama, who is not a partisan by the way (http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/06/obama-if-you-want-partisan-rhetoric-im.html), has told us why there are no jobs (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44180). It's those darn ATMs and ticket kiosks.


In his eventful Today show interview this morning, President Obama advanced this penetrating insight to explain why unemployment has been hovering between 9% and 10% throughout his presidency:


“There are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller… or you go to the airport and you use a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate. So all these things have created changes.”

As Rush Limbaugh observed, we had lots of ATMs during the Bush years, and his unemployment rate was half of Obama’s. Did the number of automated tellers and airline ticket machines double since 2008?

Personally, I rarely use an ATM any more and I bet there are a lot like me who basically quit using them when debit card use exploded and stores began offering cash back. Who needs an ATM?


Besides groping for any possible excuse to evade responsibility for skyrocketing unemployment, Obama’s comments represent the convergence of two lines of populist liberal thought. One is the Left’s curious conviction that people absolutely hate ATM machines, based on the occasional round of complaints that fees for using the machines are too high. I suspect most people would be far more upset if automated tellers were not readily available – a distinct possibility, given legislative attempts to cap the amount of money banks can charge for debit card transactions. Price controls always come with a reduction in quality.

The other, much older, criticism Obama raises is the fear of productivity, which is part of the Left’s overall critique of capitalism. Machines are cheaper than people; businessmen want to reduce cost, and do not care about people; therefore, they can’t wait to automate and fire everyone in sight.

This betrays a deep misunderstanding of the power of productivity. Machines don’t really “replace” human employees. They make humans more productive. ATM machines allow banks to service their customers with many more convenient locations – a machine built into the wall of a grocery store, or located in a small booth, can provide easy access to funds for customers.

Hmm, that's twice I've read that sort of thing today. Jonah Goldberg wrote (http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2011/06/10/simply_madness) about the "steady-state economy" movement holds that "We will have to get beyond growth as a society in order to realize a sustainable future."

That sounds like a typical progressive idea, kill progress.


Is every 20 or 30 ATMs roughly equivalent to one bank office that doesn’t need to be built, and staffed with human tellers? It doesn’t really work that way. ATMs increase the productivity of the existing bank staff. If they didn’t exist, the banks wouldn’t be making a lot of big investments in bricks, mortar, and tellers. Instead, people would drive further to get their money, spend more time standing in line, and arrange their affairs so they didn’t have to go to the bank as often. If you’re not old enough to remember what that was like, watch movies from the 60s and 70s, and look for scenes set in banks.

I don't know about where you live, but we seem to be having a competition between 3 area banks to see who can build the most branches. And that doesn't include the many new banks that have popped up the last few years. It's certainly helped me keep my job with all that new construction.

Yep, if it weren't for those darn ATMs America could get back to work.

Yep, if it weren't for those darn ATMs America could get back to work.

Well speech you didn't take the argument far enough, what about all those foreign call centres, do they make local employees more efficient? No, they replace them. There is no recovery because jobs have been exported at a massive rate, those entry level jobs just aren't there any more

Well speech you didn't take the argument far enough, what about all those foriegn call centres, do they make local employees more efficient? no, they replace them. There is no recovery because jobs have been exported at a massive rate, those entry level jobs just arn't there any more

I'm just commenting on the president's excuse. It's ridiculous.

No news there speech

I think you miss the point, there are jobs being created, are you qualified is the issue. Can you move to where they are? These are critical factors in shrinking unemployment, and sadly, many have not taken advantage of it. Sure technology will always account for less human input as far as numbers go, but that's been going on since Henry Ford came of with the mass assembly line, and that's not going to change any, nor will the need for more human to human services diminish any time soon.

Energy, and health care are the heart of a growing field of employment, I mean red hot, and if you look at where humans and technology are most needed now, you would be hard pressed to find any better. So the real question becomes, are you qualified, and can you go to the job, or are you stuck waiting for the job to come to YOU.

I think that the president was conveying the message of getting with the new technologies, that are creating new opportunities. His message has always been education to be qualified for YOUR own future, and that's where the country is headed. You live in Texas Steve, so I know you see the same things I do. I bet your local hospitals are not just hiring, but training, and educating too!

Even hospitals are paying less than they used to---and I work in a school that offers some of the new "unskilled" medical programs (not nursing or medical doctors) like medical assistants.

Believe me, you don't want some of these people taking your temperature, much less having a greater impact than that on your medical file. AND---it's a lower paying job because it takes less education than a nurse or doctor, so guess how many more MA's a hospital is going to hire than RNs?

So yeah... there are SOME jobs. Mostly there are jobs that require people either to get an entirely new 4-10 year degree or to take the same significant pay cut you'd take in any other field and still require at least a certification program.

I don't know about you, but without tuition reimbursement, there's no way I could afford to go back to school. School loans are harder to get because of the higher default rate, and grants and scholarships are extremely competitive and take almost as much work as going to school part time to research, apply for, and maintain. Well, unless you're not middle class. If you're lower class, you have way more opportunities for education and changing your career path than the middle class does.

Once again--if you're responsible, you get screwed.

That's what corporations want above all else, CHEAP labor, but when you have NO income, you have to get something. And changing a lifestyle isn't easy, nor is moving. A big difference between a 40 year olds, laid off a year, and a single 20's something first time job seeker, and a single mom/dad.

One thing this recession has brought out, I believe, is how fast we can lose things through no fault of your own, and how helpless we all are, even the smart ones who were prepared. They have been destroying the middle class for years, and now they want to dismantle the safety nets, and social programs that allow you to rebuild, instead of languishing in limbo with no hope at all.

I think that only informed voters can get jobs created, not those that are bound to the strict constraints of ideology. Why should there be only two classes of people? Working poor, or filthy rich?

Once again--if you're responsible, you get screwed.Hello again, Synn:

It's really a matter of the glass being half full or half empty. I'm responsible. My housekeeper lives in Section 8 housing. I don't feel screwed because of that. Frankly, I'm glad I can take care of myself with enough left over for those without.

If you want to know where I feel SCREWED, it's that home OWNERS get a tax deduction that I, a renter, DON'T. THAT pisses me off. I'm subsidizing RICH people. That AIN'T OK! I suppose it's fine with you...

excon

Hello again, Synn:

It's really a matter of the glass being half full or half empty. I'm responsible. My housekeeper lives in Section 8 housing. I don't feel screwed because of that. Frankly, I'm glad I can take care of myself with enough left over for those without.

If you wanna know where I feel SCREWED, it's that home OWNERS get a tax deduction that I, a renter, DON'T. THAT pisses me off. I'm subsidizing RICH people. That AIN'T ok! I suppose it's fine with you...

excon

Hey, I'm okay with everyone paying a flat tax and no one getting breaks.

NO ONE.

No breaks for kids, or houses, or donating to charity. You pay X% of your earnings or a minimum amount if you have no earnings as taxes to contribute to the upkeep of your country.

I'm all for paying 30-50% and giving specific benefits to EVERYONE (like... maternity and paternity leave, or paid FMLA time, or childcare and/or education subsidies ) to EVERYONE in this country, instead of only the poor getting it from taxpayer money and the rich getting it from tax shelters/exemptions/deductions.

Hello again, Synn:

It's really a matter of the glass being half full or half empty. I'm responsible. My housekeeper lives in Section 8 housing. I don't feel screwed because of that. Frankly, I'm glad I can take care of myself with enough left over for those without.

If you wanna know where I feel SCREWED, it's that home OWNERS get a tax deduction that I, a renter, DON'T. THAT pisses me off. I'm subsidizing RICH people. That AIN'T ok! I suppose it's fine with you...

excon

Ex, forget this glass half empty, half full, crap, What is needed is fair distribution of wealth and that means stopping exploitation whether it be in excessive pricing or low wages. Government incentives are often offered through the tax system and often left long after they have achieved their purpose. This is a wrong use of the tax system which should be simple, one rate, no deductions and subsidies given out where it is specifically targeted instead of the lazy system we have now and inadept attempts of social engineering through the tax system

It must be nice that you can afford a housekeeper that makes your glass half full in comparison to those who can't, but how well do you pay that person? Do you get a tax deduction for them? Some could say they are subsidising your life style

John Watson, CEO of Chevron, says oil companies can create jobs (http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000027360) if congress would get out of the way a little. I think that would also allow us to use less foreign oil and see gas prices drop, but then this president wants to price us out of energy use as it is.

I am blocked from watching videos at work--can you sum up the article, please?

I am blocked from watching videos at work--can you sum up the article, please?Hello Synn:

In summation, he saw the senate take away $10 billion in subsidies from the ethanol industry yesterday, and he's simply guarding HIS $10 BILLION in taxpayer handouts... He mentions them SEVERAL times during the interview.

I'm sure Steve will have a different take on what he said, so I encourage you to watch it when you get home.

excon

I am blocked from watching videos at work--can you sum up the article, please?

The transcript was there also Synnen, but here you go.


Watson: “I was very concerned about the tax proposals in the Menendez bill that came forward that day because i never thought I would see the day when an administration and more than half the U.S. senate would propose a tax bill that actually would disadvantage 132-year-old company like Chevron relative to Russian, Chinese, French, Italian and other companies, not just outside the united states, but inside the united states of America. So we did push back on bills that were being critical trying to impose punitive taxes on our business. We can create jobs, we can play a positive role and that’s my message.”

...

CNBC: So do you think… we’re in D.C. this is the red tape capital, are the policies or lack of policies that we’re seeing here hurting job creation at Chevron?

Watson: They are. In fact, we told a group of senators this morning, that there’s a long list of regulations that have been enacted and been in place for a long time and new ones that keep coming that are restricting our ability to create jobs. We’ve provided that list to the senators. But for our industry in particular, you know, deep water drill ship employs about 200 people directly and 1,000 indirectly. It raises revenue for the government, puts people back to work, reduces imported oil. We just want to be put in the game. We can create jobs if we’re given the opportunity.

Some of the oil companies "demands":


Opening up acreage to development

Issuing permits in a timely fashion


Keeping in place a tax structure that allows the investment to create those jobs

Sorry--I clicked on the link and got "your corporation blocked this webpage. Reason: videos". I wasn't even able to see the transcript. Thank you for posting it. (they're kind of Nazis around here for where we can go on our computers).

And yeah... sorry. I don't feel sorry for the oil companies at all. Want to know how to lower costs? Stop paying the shareholders such a high portion, and reinvest it in the company. Even if we DID open more land (which is just asking for another environmental disaster), they still have to get it to a refinery.

Want to know how the oil companies could create a LOT of jobs AND lower the price of US oil? Build 3 more refineries in the US. With their own money, thank you very much.

Keeping in place a tax structure that allows the investment to create those jobs
Hello again, Steve:

In other words, keep your hands OFF MY taxpayer handout!

excon

PS> If the tax structure they need to create jobs is already IN PLACE, where's the jobs??

Who said anything about feeling sorry for oil companies?

Lets face it, corporations and banks want the laws they want, and they pay good money to get them. According to the video, they gave a list of laws they want struck down so they can make more money, on top of record profits.

Bottomline, they want more money than they have, and then they might share it, or invest it, or circulate it. Yeah that 35% business tax looks good on paper, but with all the loop holes, they don't pay nearly that, no American company does. Nor has ever in the last eight years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/business/economy/02leonhardt.html?_r=1


Arguably, the United States now has a corporate tax code that’s the worst of all worlds. The official rate is higher than in almost any other country, which forces companies to devote enormous time and effort to finding loopholes. Yet the government raises less money in corporate taxes than it once did, because of all the loopholes that have been added in recent decades.


The problem with the current system is that it distorts incentives. Decisions that would otherwise be inefficient for a company — and that are indeed inefficient for the larger economy — can make sense when they bring a big tax break. “Companies should be making investments based on their commercial potential,” as Aswath Damodaran, a finance professor at New York University, says, “not for tax reasons.”

Instead, airlines sometimes buy more planes than they really need. Energy companies drill more holes. Drug companies conduct research with only marginal prospects of success.

Inefficiencies like these slow economic growth, and they are the reason that both conservatives and liberals criticize the corporate tax code so harshly. Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, says it hurts job creation. Mr. Obama, in his State of the Union address, said that the system “makes no sense, and it has to change.”

Right now, they don't have to create jobs to make money. Just keep giving them MORE tax breaks.

Back to the original premise, governments don't create jobs, they take credit for job creation, if they are doing their job they create opportunities. It is people whether acting through corporations or otherwise who create jobs, who have the individual vision to take a risk.

We can have a massive public service but this administration's job is the next's budget cut, so let's not talk about creating jobs, but about employment. Now someone says consumers create employment but reality says more productivity, so the existing labour force can deal with more consumers. How do we do this? By reorganising what we do and we do this continually. Soon robotics will take over manual tasks and so employment will become intellectual. What happens to those who are unskilled? This is a question no one wants to tackle, because retraining just doesn't cut it.

I suggest we are going to need many more gardeners, because it is difficult to do that job with robotics, but even that job can be done once and then maintenance. Academia here we come!

Remember that minimum wage increase that was supposed to give people a "living wage" I think they called it? As had been forecast, the least skilled among us are finding it difficult to reap the benefits. Only 1 in 4 teens are finding employment, the lowest level since 1948 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304447804576411903821123330.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop).


Perhaps you've already noticed around the neighborhood, but this is a rotten summer for young Americans to find a job. The Department of Labor reported last week that a smaller share of 16-19 year-olds are working than at anytime since records began to be kept in 1948.

Only 24% of teens, one in four, have jobs, compared to 42% as recently as the summer of 2001. The nearby chart chronicles the teen employment percentage over time, including the notable plunge in the last decade. So instead of learning valuable job skills—getting out of bed before noon, showing up on time, being courteous to customers, operating a cash register or fork lift—millions of kids will spend the summer playing computer games or hanging out.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AN835A_3teen_D_20110630190003.jpg

The lousy economic recovery explains much of this decline in teens working, and some is due to increases in teen summer school enrollment. Some is also cultural: Many parents don't put the same demands on teens as they once did to get out and work.

But Congress has also contributed by passing one of the most ill-timed minimum wage increases in history. One of the first acts of the gone-but-not-forgotten Nancy Pelosi ascendancy was to raise the minimum wage in stages to $7.25 an hour in 2009 from $5.15 in 2007. Even liberals ought to understand that raising the cost of hiring the young and unskilled while employers are slashing payrolls is loopy economics.

Or maybe not. The Center for American Progress, often called the think tank for the Obama White House, recently recommended another increase to $8.25 an hour. Though the U.S. unemployment rate is 9.1%, the thinkers assert that a rising wage would "stimulate economic growth to the tune of 50,000 new jobs." So if the government orders employers to pay more to hire workers when they're already not hiring, they'll somehow hire more workers. By this logic, if we raised the minimum wage to $25 an hour we'd have full employment.

Now ain't that some kind of logic, force employers to pay more so they'll hire more people. Makes no sense at all, unless of course you WANT the economy to tank (http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/06/08/american-economy-quickly-nearing-perfection/).

And who was hit the hardest? Black teens, whose unemployment rate stood at 41.6% in April.


Black teens have had the worst of it, with their unemployment rate rising to 41.6% in April from 29% in 2007, faster than almost any other group. A 2010 study by economists William Even of Miami University of Ohio and David Macpherson of Trinity University found that as a result of the $2.10 increase in minimum wage, "teen employment dropped by 6.9 percent. . . . For the teen population with less than 12 years of education completed, teen employment dropped by 12.4 percent." For teens priced out of the labor market, their wage fell to zero.

Well at least they'll have the summer off.

Only 1 in 4 teens are finding employment
Once all the states get rid of all the illegals immigrants, there will be plenty of jobs. One state's blueberry harvest isn't getting picked after it made such a law. The teens in that state should be overjoyed!

From the Peach Pundit, May 31, 2011 --

Last week, Agriculture Commissioner Gary Black agreed to conduct a survey for Governor Nathan Deal to determine if media reports of labor shortages for picking crops across South Georgia are real or contrived by opponents of the newly signed immigration reform law.

According to the Associated Press’ Ray Henry, Black is to report his findings by June 10th. A letter sent by Deal requesting the analysis stated “Many farmers have raised concerns about the availability of an adequate, stable workforce for Georgia’s production agriculture industry.”

In the same report, Black accepted the Governor’s request, stating “We’re trying to determine if there’s a problem at all and to what extent it’s affecting growers.”

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association places a $300 Million price tag on crops at risk because of labor shortages. The same report lists anecdotal evidence of a Tifton farmer who had between 75 and 100 workers that usually show up to harvest fruits and vegetables but did not, causing some crops to perish in the field. He’s now planning on cutting back planting for summer crops.

Similarly, a blueberry farmer from Baxley reported that he’s short one third of his labor, despite paying a $50 signing bonus and $25 weekly bonuses on top of his normal pay scale.

Minimum wage applies to everyone, not just teen agers. If you are adults making minimum wage, that makes you poor enough to be on welfare, and hardly able to barely buy groceries. That might be great for companies, but hardly great for those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Try to get sympathy about unemployed teen agers when dad is unemployed because his factory closed, and now he flips hamburgers for minimum wage. Just because they can be happy with a 7/8 bucks an hour in India, doesn't mean the living is great here.

A teen who can't find work will have a lot of time with his unemployed dad this summer. Heck, if they lowered the minimum wage, then they could make you work for it, and they still can, skilled, or unskilled. How much has your pay gone up in the last 10/15 years?

Then if the Dems are right, let's just raise the minimum again and we'll have full employment in no time. Dad and Jr can both find work.

Then if the Dems are right, let's just raise the minimum again and we'll have full employment in no time. Dad and Jr can both find work.
Or the big corporations can bring back the jobs they sent overseas. Or hey! Use all that surplus money to create jobs.

Create jobs for the hell of it, yeah that's going to happen.

Remember that minimum wage increase that was supposed to give people a "living wage" I think they called it? As had been forecast, the least skilled among us are finding it difficult to reap the benefits. Only 1 in 4 teens are finding employment, the lowest level since 1948 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304447804576411903821123330.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop).



Now ain't that some kind of logic, force employers to pay more so they'll hire more people. Makes no sense at all, unless of course you WANT the economy to tank (http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2011/06/08/american-economy-quickly-nearing-perfection/).

And who was hit the hardest? Black teens, whose unemployment rate stood at 41.6% in April.



Well at least they'll have the summer off.

there is a false logic here that low wages stimulate economic growth. That may work in an economy which has no industry such as in Asia, but it has limited application because many other things have to be in operation. China booms, it has a stable political environment, Pakistan languishes, it has an unstable political environment, yet both have low wages and abundant labour. The US is moving into a post industrial phase and structural unemployment is the norm until new skills are learned and it doesn't matter what the wage rates are, Soon you will need a degree to sweep streets not because knowledge is important but because employers value someone who can demonstrate they can think

Then the "job creators" aren't the job creators you thought they were are they? No matter what they pay you, they make money, and it's a fact that wages are only 10 percent of business expenses. That's right 10 percent. The only companies that don't make money are MISMANAGED ones.

But I'm a former union worker, and we had profit sharing. AND THEY MADE BOO-KOO MONEY. If they didn't we didn't. Shared sacrifice, shared prosperity, shared risk.

The US is moving into a post industrial phase
And the retail/service industry (what we are in now) has traditionally paid less than manufacturing.

And the retail/service industry (what we are in now) has traditionally paid less than manufacturing.

That's it, there is a certain compensation for risk and skill, but service industries pay better than manufacturing and you are moving away from unionised industries to knowledge industries. My country lost most of its manufacturing and still maintains full employment, it took a lot of structural adjustment and a great deal of pain but it is all underpinned by an adult minimum wage of $15.50 an hour

China booms, it has a stable political environment,
it's a Potamkin economy... construction on housing and office space that will never be occupied just to keep construction workers employed .


Soon you will need a degree to sweep streets not because knowledge is important but because employers value someone who can demonstrate they can think

College Education, Good Jobs: Why Degrees Are Overrated - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1967580,00.html)

Indeed many teenagers would benefit from an apprentice like education. That is where the minimum wage further harms their prospects. So instead of 'on the job training' ,where the young adult learns a trade while being paid for it ,they are forced instead to go to a trade school and pay to learn the same thing .

it's a Potamkin economy... construction on housing and office space that will never be occupied just to keep construction workers employed .

Yes Tom much criticism, but remember those jobs exist because you exported your employment to China. Eventually those buildings will be occupied as the villagers move to the cities. In a nation where capital is in the hands of government who is going to initiate apartment building and civic development, the peasants or the government? I think you should visit China instead of criticising them, you might get a different view.
http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/jiaozhou-bay-bridge-worlds-longest-bridge-opens-in-china/story-e6frfq80-1226085341214



Indeed many teenagers would benefit from an apprentice like education. That is where the minimum wage further harms their prospects. So instead of 'on the job training' ,where the young adult learns a trade while being paid for it ,they are forced instead to go to a trade school and pay to learn the same thing .

no Tom you opted for a different paradigm. A minimum wage prevents exploitation a concept foreign in the US, which since its inception has depended upon it.. There is nothing wrong with trade education in schools, in fact we have adopted trade education as part of high school courses. This prequalifies the young for employment. There is nothing wrong with trade schools where skills are taught, usually as part of an apprenticeship. You have a pecular idea, on the one hand a paid college education yet object to paying for trade training.

No one values what they get for free, particularly the young

Create jobs for the hell of it, yeah that's gonna happen.Hello again, Steve:

You're right. They need some DEMAND first. Consumers create demand when they have money in their pockets. That was my original point. So, let's give some money to consumers instead of zillionaires.. Then jobs will be created, right?? I mean if they're NOT going to create jobs, then WHY shouldn't we ask them to pay a FAIR share??

excon

Hello again, Steve:

You're right. They need some DEMAND first. Consumers create demand when they have money in their pockets. That was my original point. So, let's give some money to consumers instead of zillionaires.. Then jobs will be created, right??? I mean if they're NOT going to create jobs, then WHY shouldn't we ask them to pay a FAIR share???

excon

Yes ex let's have some income redistribution away from the high fliers who don't earn what they get to the real workers who need it, but not through government handouts but through fair wages. When people have money to spend they spend it and the economy works, when people have nothing the economy grinds to a halt. Pay the people who have a job well, not make them subsidise the low end.

Didn't you just praise the Communist China model... low wage protectionist merchantilism ?

didn't you just praise the Communist China model ...low wage protectionist merchantilism ?

Not at all, wages in China will rise, it is happening and it is inevietable. The west has fallen into the communist trap. That China finds a way to keep its people employed is not wrong policy, it is wrong policy to leave them idle and waste billions on bialing out high flying tax evaders. What is also wrong policy is exporting your industries to China in exchange for low cost goods and leaving your own people unemployed. A little protectionism goes along way. What was america doing when Germany took the Chinese car industry, making SUV for fat tax evading americans? Perhaps they will send you Humvees soon. Just remember whose iron ore and coal make it possible

Not at all, wages in China will rise, it is happening and it is inevietable. The west has fallen into the communist trap. That China finds a way to keep its people employed is not wrong policy, it is wrong policy to leave them idle and waste billions on bialing out high flying tax evaders.
Oh so low wages are useful at a time of high unemployment ? I thought you were against that .


A little protectionism goes along way.

Protectionism turns recession into depression... turns trade war into shooting war. Did you learn nothing from the 1930s history texts ?

oh so low wages are useful at a time of high unemployment ? I thought you were against that .

No Tom I said a minimum wage is essential to redistribute wealth, an entirely different concept. Choice is also important Tom and the Chinese choose to work


protectionism turns recession into depression... turns trade war into shooting war. Did you learn nothing from the 1930s history texts ?

What I learned from 1930's history is that unemployment breeds fascism and dictatorship, that it sets up a mindset where people will accept anything in order just to have employment, an attitude that capitalism cultivates, What I have learned from the last decade is that the greed of capitalism knows no bounds. From your history book you think Russia should have sold Hitler oil in the way Russia sells gas to Germany today. That is the sort of thing that starts shooting wars. It isn't protectionism that starts shooting wars it is exploitation. Perhaps the US should have sold Japan oil, aftereall it would have saved us a cold war

I guess unlike you ex, Steve Wynn is not too excited (http://seekingalpha.com/article/279999-wynn-resorts-ceo-discusses-q2-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=qanda) about the expanding his business under Obama. Who is Steve Wynn? CEO of Wynn Resorts.


Well, here's our problem. There are a host of opportunities for expansion in Las Vegas, a host of opportunities to create tens of thousands of jobs in Las Vegas. I know that I could do 10,000 more myself and according to the Chamber of Commerce and the Visitors Convention Bureau, if we hired 10,000 employees, it would create another 20,000 additional jobs for a grand total of 30,000. I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on, on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating. And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems -- that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America. You bet. And until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, "Oh God, don't be attacking Obama." Well, this is Obama's deal, and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America. The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution, and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest or holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government, and there's no need to soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.

But I suppose he wouldn't know anything about this, would he? Well that's exactly what's happening, businesses are sitting on their thumbs for the exact reasons he stated.

nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress

Seems like that is what he HAS been doing, but the Republicans have dug their heels into the sand and refuse to give an inch, hoping he will fail. Meanwhile, the American public is fated to suffer.

But I suppose he wouldn't know anything about this, would he? Well that's exactly what's happening, businesses are sitting on their thumbs for the exact reasons he stated.Hello again, Steve:

Yes, I know who Steve Wynn is, and he's WRONG, for the exact reasons most Republicans state all the time... He's a BIG businessman. He has capital to "sit on". He can wait. He also has a POLITICAL point to make, and he's MAKING it above...

Republicans remind us ALL THE TIME, that the engine for creating jobs in this country is SMALL business's, like MINE - not HIS. I DON'T have capital to sit on. I don't have time to pontificate.

I HAVE uncertainty, but not because of Obamacare, or my taxes, or my regulations.. I have uncertainty about whether anybody will BUY my product. When they do, and when I need to hire new people, I will. THAT is the ONLY consideration ME and jillions like me have. We don't have press agents. We don't have reporters asking us what we think... We don't have political points to make. We're TOO damn busy running our shops.

I represent the job creators, NOT Steve Wynn.

excon

nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress

Seems like that is what he HAS been doing, but the Republicans have dug their heels into the sand and refuse to give an inch, hoping he will fail. Meanwhile, the American public is fated to suffer.

So that's all you got out of it? You missed the part about the president's "total lack of leadership", Obama being "the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in [his] lifetime" and the 3 mentions of being afraid of Obama and the government?

P.S. What is the president's plan?

P.S. What is the president's plan?
So far he's been a spectacular leader. I have no doubt there's a plan.


Why isn't big business that is getting all those tax breaks (for years now) creating the jobs they are so famous for creating in the past?

I represent the job creators, NOT Steve Wynn.


I don't believe I ever disagreed with your point on your business and I get that small business creates most jobs. But when a guy says he could create 10,000 jobs which would lead to an additional 20,000 if Obama wasn't a "wet blanket", that's significant.

He can't create those jobs because he can't sell his product because people are cutting back, way back, on discretionary spending thanks in large part to that same uncertainty this administration has created.

that same uncertainty this administration has created.
WHO has created the uncertainty?

So far he's been a spectacular leader. I have no doubt there's a plan.

Spectacular? On what planet? His budget proposal was laughed out of town by his own party. On most issues he outsources his work to Democrats in congress while he plays golf. What leadership and again, what plan?

WHO has created the uncertainty?

Those who claim responsibility for the economy (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57025.html).

Oh please.

The BANKS (that got BAILED OUT) created this uncertainty.

The companies that outsourced to other countries created this uncertainty.

I'm not spending money either. If I lose my job, I qualify for pretty much nothing from the government to help me keep my house. So screw discretionary spending--I have the money now, but the hell if I'm spending it on crap I don't need when I don't know if my job is the next to go... and no one hires a pregnant woman, regardless the discrimination laws against it.

The government isn't creating jobs. Big business isn't creating jobs--they're shoving those jobs off to other countries. And tax cuts NEVER create new jobs. Show me proof that it ever has. And companies that DO have to make changes always CHARGE more instead of CUTTING PROFITS.

Screw it. We're all going to hell in a handbasket, and the people who have money are the people in power, and we can't take away one without taking away the other.

PS--OBAMA is one of those people with money and power, and I don't see him cutting his own benefits, just like I don't see Congress cutting THEIR benefits.

When those in power tighten their belts and go without, maybe people will have respect for them and consider their ideas on how to cut spending elsewhere.

Those who claim responsibility for the economy (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57025.html).
Wasserman went on to say in that article: “Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House right now seems to have been strangled by the tea party,” she said. “The tail seems to be wagging the dog right now.”

"Republicans lack courage. They know how to do it the right way, they know how to compromise, they just can’t seem to break their fear of what the ramifications would be from the tea party right-wing fringe if they listened to what their inner self tells them to do.”

Hello again,

I'm willing to give tax breaks to business's who CREATE jobs... I agree with Republicans. It's a GREAT incentive... I'm just not willing to do it FIRST. Let them spend their money, and hire new people, and THEN we'll give 'em a tax break.

What's wrong with that? How many things do you pay for first, and HOPE you get what was promised?? I'd venture, NONE!

excon

Wonder where the rich got that money to sit on? Oh that's right, while our wages didn't go up, the prices of everything else did, and still are, and the rich got bailed out with my money and now they make money and sit on it, while we get laid off.

And conservatives, still believe in the big business god bestowing their blessings. Get real, stop listening to a rich guy crying about what he could do for the country if only he had more of his money, and he could make his own rules, and police himself. >Nod, wink<

Repubs believe in taking your job, giving it to the lowest bidder, and treating you like a worthless bum! That's what they do, and have been doing for the last 12 years. And conservatives are so scared of everybody taking what they have, they willingly give permission to screw everyone even themselves. That's why they can't negotiate, or compromise, because they believe what the gods of money say, and can't even tell they are being lied to or used. Case in point, ask any conservative what they think of a guy who has been laid off and there are no jobs to feed his family with. There comments and voting record, are public record, and they used the poor and unemployed as hostages to keep tax cuts for the rich in place.

Now they use the debt ceiling as a hostage to take more money and benefits from ex workers, and the poor, old, and disabled, and let the rich gods they worship keep sitting on all the money they stole from you.

Job creators my a$$. Slave masters is more like it, Thieves is more accurate, and fools are the ones that listen. As America gets more educated, and their fear replaced by FACTS, then the problems can be solved to the benefit of us all. The problem is too many LOW INFORMATION voters.

End of rant... for now.

End of rant..............................for now.Hello tal:

You did GOOD!

excon

Wasserman went on to say in that article: “Unfortunately, the Republican leadership in the House right now seems to have been strangled by the tea party,” she said. “The tail seems to be wagging the dog right now.”

"Republicans lack courage. They know how to do it the right way, they know how to compromise, they just can’t seem to break their fear of what the ramifications would be from the tea party right-wing fringe if they listened to what their inner self tells them to do.”

You expected her to offer praise? You asked who created the uncertainty and I answered - those who claim ownership of the economy, Democrats.

Oh please.

The BANKS (that got BAILED OUT) created this uncertainty.

We are a year past Obama's "recovery summer" and the DNC chair claimed ownership of the economy. I'm just giving credit where credit was taken.

Not having a job, is uncertainty
Not knowing if you can stay in your house, is uncertainty
Not knowing if you can see a doctor, is uncertainty.
Not knowing if you will lose what little you have, is uncertainty.

Having a few trillion under your a$$, AIN'T uncertainty, its hoarding. A luxury that few have. Who owns the economy? Ask the few who stand in the way of progress. Ask the few who sit on wealth, and don't circulate it. Ask the few who cannot compromise or give a darn thing to live up to what's expected of those that have.

Ask the few, who do nothing but blame everyone, and everything else, for what they are unwilling to do. Create jobs. When you have a few trillion, thats NOT uncertainty.that's LEVERAGE!

You asked who created the uncertainty
My question was rhetorical.

Ask the few, who do nothing but blame everyone, and everything else, for what they are unwilling to do. Create jobs. When you have a few trillion, thats NOT uncertainty.thats LEVERAGE!

Look Tal, you can demonize big business all you want, I have my own beefs with them at times, too. BUT, big business didn't get big by being stupid. Bottom line is they have the same goals as small business, to make money and grow. Their primary responsibility is to make money for their investors, not save the world.

If you find that cruel that's your problem but business - large or small - typically doesn't do anything that isn't aimed at that primary responsibility. Even this trend of businesses going "green" is about making money. It's good PR, plain and simple.

Example, we sell fire alarms made by Siemens, a huge global company. They are "committed to minimizing our own impact on the environment through our policies, practices and performance," so they say.

You know what I see? One of the world's great paper wasters. I sent them a PO this year that was 2 pages. When shipped, I received over half a pound of paper just in packing lists - 48 pages. The invoice was 6 pages. They don't care, it's all about making money. How much money do you think Al Gore has made on climate change? Hmmm?

Everyone is in it for the money and looking out for number one, and Barack Obama is a prime example of that very thing. He doesn't care about anything but advancing himself. If he cared, he would get out of the way of America's ability to prosper which would lead to more jobs. But as long as he continues to be a "wet blanket" on the economy, business is going to be cautious and new jobs are going to be scarce.

Yup... it's about looking out for profits and damn anything else.

Thank you, that's Keynesian Economics 101.

Ask the former Soviet Union and Venezuela how well that worked out for them.

My question was rhetorical.

Must not have been too rhetorical, you responded to my response.

Must not have been too rhetorical, you responded to my response.
You totally missed my point, so I tried to make it with a quote.

I guess unlike you ex, Steve Wynn is not too excited (http://seekingalpha.com/article/279999-wynn-resorts-ceo-discusses-q2-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=qanda) about the expanding his business under Obama. Who is Steve Wynn? CEO of Wynn Resorts.



But I suppose he wouldn't know anything about this, would he? Well that's exactly what's happening, businesses are sitting on their thumbs for the exact reasons he stated.

Wynn is a lifetime Dem who until now was a big time Obama supporter. I suspect we'll see more of this in the coming months . Former boss of GE Jeff Immelt has spoken out .So did Buffett .and of course what is happening to Boeing is criminal.

You totally missed my point, so I tried to make it with a quote.

Please, enough of your condescension. It's totally unbecoming.

Please, enough of your condescension. It's totally unbecoming.There was absolutely no condescension in any of her posts.

There was absolutely no condescension in any of her posts.

I find it condescending to be told I don't get it, as in "You totally missed my point." No, I didn't miss the point.

Be nice, or Ben will come close this on us.

Be nice, or Ben will come close this on us.

Ya know, I thought the purpose of these member forums was to take it off the main boards and allow us to "have at it" a little bit. N'est-ce pas?

N'est-ce pas?Holy crap, that was perfect - mes félicitations.

Holy crap, that was perfect - mes félicitations.

Well thank you. I don't recall a lot but I did take 2 years of French. Why a Texan would need to know French is beyond me but the teacher was a babe.

Wynn of course isn't the only guy complaining about the business climate under Obama (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=578866&p=1):


• 3M's George Buckley, who blasted Obama last February as anti-business. "We know what his instincts are," Buckley said. "We've got a real choice between manufacturing in Canada or Mexico — which tends to be more pro-business — and America," he told the Financial Times.

• Boeing's Jim McNerney, who in the Wall Street Journal last May called Obama's handpicked National Labor Relations Board's suit against his company a "fundamental assault on the capitalist principles that have sustained America's competitiveness since it became the world's largest economy nearly 140 years ago."

• Intel's Paul Otellini, who told CNET last August that the U.S. legal environment has become so hostile to business that there is likely to be "an inevitable erosion and shift of wealth, much like we're seeing today in Europe — this is the bitter truth."

• Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus, who observed to radio host Hugh Hewitt last month that Obama "never had to make payroll," that "nobody has ever created a job in this administration" and that the president is "surrounded by college professors."

• GE's Jeffrey Immelt, one of Obama's biggest supporters, who hit out at the president last year. "Business did not like the U.S. president and the president did not like business," the FT reported him saying. "People are in a really bad mood. We have to become an industrial powerhouse again, but you don't do this when government and entrepreneurs are not in sync."

• Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, another Obama backer, who blasted Obama's bank tax in January 2010 as a "guilt tax," once called Obama's carbon tax idea "regressive" and this month denounced Obama's obsession with corporate jets.

And I can't forget how Waxman's committee wanted to put their boot to the neck of John Deer, Caterpillar, Verizon and AT&T last year. But what's being a "wet blanket" to business and job creation as long as the regime gets its "shared sacrifice" and Obama gets reelected?

Wynn of course isn't the only guy complaining about the business climate under ObamaHello again, Steve:

You can continue to believe BIG businessmen, who can afford to SIT on the sidelines with their MILLIONS, or you can believe a guy who actually RUNS a small business...

The FACT of the matter is, in ALL my years as an entrepreneur, I've NEVER made a decision based on the "business climate". In fact, I NEVER knew what the business climate was, because it was absolutely IRRELEVANT to my business decisions...

Let me clue you in on another myth... In the 30 years I've RUN company's, there's NEVER been a period of "certainty". That would be NEVER! If you think businessmen WAIT till there's "certainty", there would be NO business. There was ALWAYS some agency trying to increase my costs, and butting into my business. That's the way it IS. I don't like it, but I adjust my costs to REFLECT it, and move on. What I DON'T do, is WAIT on the sidelines... BIG businessmen don't do that, either. BIG businessmen have POLITICAL agendas. But, NONE of them would sit on the sidelines if somebody wanted to buy what they're selling.

Take Boeing for example. You've been complaining about how Obama is treating Boeing... He musta REALLY hit them with a "wet blanket". They'll never get any business... Poor Boeing... I'm SURE they'll keep their capital on the SIDELINES, in SPITE of the HUMONGOUS order they just got for airplanes... So much for wet blankets.

excon

Ya know, I thought the purpose of these member forums was to take it off the main boards and allow us to "have at it" a little bit. N'est-ce pas?

Yup. But not to the point where we're being mean to each other. We can disagree--but we have to be respectful about it :)

It hadn't gotten bad yet--just pointing out that if it kept going, it was probably going to come to Ben's attention.

Yup. But not to the point where we're being mean to each other. We can disagree--but we have to be respectful about it :)

It hadn't gotten bad yet--just pointing out that if it kept going, it was probably going to come to Ben's attention.

I'm all for being respectful... but that seems to be quite a subjective subject.

You can continue to believe BIG businessmen, who can afford to SIT on the sidelines with their MILLIONS, or you can believe a guy who actually RUNS a small business...

You seem to be under the illusion that I can't believe both.


Take Boeing for example. You've been complaining about how Obama is treating Boeing... He musta REALLY hit them with a "wet blanket". They'll never get any business... Poor Boeing... I'm SURE they'll keep their capital on the SIDELINES, in SPITE of the HUMONGOUS order they just got for airplanes... So much for wet blankets.

Boeing has been accused of wrongdoing for daring to put people to work in a right to work state. Whatever millions or billions they have to sit on is irrelevant, they are being persecuted for putting non-union people to work even though they have fully complied with the rules concerning “runaway shops”.

No one in Washington lost a job and in fact Boeing has added 2000 jobs while creating another 1000 jobs in South Carolina. You tell those thousand workers in South Carolina they can't really have those jobs because you don't feel sorry for Being, OK?

Relax Steve, Boeing like other multinational companies use whatever leverage they can get to off set union leverage to working conditions, and collective bargaining, wages, and benefits. Often the result is wage stagnation, which companies love more than anything, that starts in the right to work states, and out sourcing and moving to another country where the labor is cheap, and benefits and work rules are non-existent. That's what the lawsuit is about, LEVERAGE. I am all for jobs, not slavery, and leverage is about MONEY, and quiet as its kept, Boeing's Carolina plant, non union as it is, is still covered under a collective bargaining agreement, so what's the difference? Union dues. Less money for unions, less leverage for workers, like yourself.

Boeing has plenty of lawyers, and plants, so don't cry to hard for them.

Boeing has plenty of lawyers, and plants, so don't cry to hard for them.

So I take it that A), you're OK with the administration putting their boot on the neck of Boeing for no lawful reason and B), 1000 jobs not being created in South Carolina. You can help ex tell those workers they can't have their jobs because Boeing deserves it.

They can bring the jobs from Europe back over here too, or even better, give the workers in Carolina the same thing as they do in Washington, leverage over work conditions, rules, and benefits. You know that includes due process for advancements and firings also don't you? Why wouldn't they? Don't you have that where you work Steve?

Lets be logical, can your boss arbitrarily fire you, and hire his brother in law? And none of this the boss likes you as a retort, or anything about what a great and valuable worker you are. He can still replace you with his brother in law right??

Screw bringing jobs back from Europe.

Europe has MUCH better working conditions than the US.

Bring the jobs back from Asia, Africa, and South America.

You see what happened in Mexico, when all the factory jobs went there, before they started crossing the oceans. Don't tell me "the job creators" aren't looking for willing slaves.

Hello again, Steve:

Wynn Resorts' 2011 second-quarter earnings were up more than $300 million from the same period of 2010. Its stock price has more than tripled since June 2009.

Wish I had one of them "wet blankets".

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Wynn Resorts’ 2011 second-quarter earnings were up more than $300 million from the same period of 2010. Its stock price has more than tripled since June 2009.

Wish I had one of them "wet blankets".

It wasn't from a good showing in this country.


Wynn's results benefited from rapid gains in the Macau casino business (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576455693374202196.html?m od=googlenews_wsj). Gambling revenue in the Chinese territory rose 45% from a year earlier in the January-June period, after a 58% surge for all of last year. Macau, the only place in China where casino gambling is legal, overtook the Las Vegas Strip as the world's biggest gambling market in 2006 and is poised to rake in five times the Strip's gambling revenue this year.

Sounds like a "wet blanket" to me. Except of course in Macau.

They can bring the jobs from Europe back over here too, or even better, give the workers in Carolina the same thing as they do in Washington, leverage over work conditions, rules, and benefits.

Or, they can just not create jobs at all. It's a damned easy choice Tal, job or no job. Obama would rather Boeing not create any jobs if they aren't union jobs.

So, like I said, you and ex can tell those 1000 people in South Carolina that job they've been waiting for has been canceled because you don't feel sorry for Being. After that the two of you can get together and offer some "shared sacrifice" to feed them.

Get the facts Steve, the plant has been built, and the jobs being filled, and I doubt anything changes that and the courts will decide if the lawsuit that's been filed has merit, or not. If Boeing broke the law, damages will be assessed, but I seriously doubt they close the plant.

I understand your feelings, but the facts don't support your concerns. The real question is if Boeing expanded to make more planes, to meet demand, or is this a union busting tactic. Be years before that's known, or if the lawsuit has merit.

Don't panic, and get carried away by perception, until the facts have presented themselves. I would caution you on jumping on the band wagon of any multinational corporation at this time, until more is revealed as to their agenda, which is making money, and lots of it. Not whether YOU as an American has a job.

And oh, don't forget, the poor and jobless are fed through Medicaid, your taxes we all share in. That's up to the state, if they are eligible or not.

I understand your feelings, but the facts don't support your concerns. The real question is if Boeing expanded to make more planes, to meet demand, or is this a union busting tactic. Be years before thats known, or if the lawsuit has merit.

Then by all means show me the facts.

A lawsuit was filed and its up to a judge to decide the MERITS of the suit, before it can proceed. That hasn't been done yet.

The plant is built and hiring is being done, production is already under way.

That's all the facts so far. The rest is just speculation, and opinion

The process has only just started. If Boeing was worried about closing a brand new plant, would they just keep going with it??

Charged with what? What are the merits? I'll tell what they are, there are none. And that's a fact.

To bad you have no standing, just an opinion.

What are the merits of the case, Tal? You tell me. What exactly did Being do wrong that brought the weight of the federal government down on them - what law(s) did they break?

Union-Boeing lawsuit may take years - Local - TheSunNews.com (http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/04/24/2118666/union-boeing-lawsuit-may-take.html)

Read the links in the story as well and look at other lawsuits against Boeing. This goes back a few decades.

Union-Boeing lawsuit may take years - Local - TheSunNews.com (http://www.thesunnews.com/2011/04/24/2118666/union-boeing-lawsuit-may-take.html)

Read the links in the story as well and look at other lawsuits against Boeing. This goes back a few decades.


The NLRB seeks to force Boeing to move this work to Washington based on what? I have already noted they have added workers in Washington. No union workers there lost their jobs, jobs have been created in both states. How is that retaliation or union busting? It's win-win, but this administration would rather have the workers in SC lose than have both sides win.

The House Committee on Education and the Workplace Thursday took steps to reign in the NLRB's authority to regulate private business decisions plant locations. They pushed the bill out of committee ,to the floor for a full House vote.

I think it important that they came down in favor of a business making decisions on where they operate ;and the right of workers to be free from forced unionism. Now we will get an up or down vote for the nation to see which Reps are for workers and business rights... and for states to have the power to designate the state a 'right to work' state and not get penalized by the Levithian for it.

Can't form a union without voting for it. Not giving private corporation rules and guidelines has ALWAYS led to economic disaster.

Maybe you trust rich people, and corporations to police themselves, I don't. And they have never done anything in history to change that opinion. All we have as a counter balance is unions, and government, as flawed as they both may be.

Again you take it to the extreme. I neither said that there shouldn't be labor rules nor did I contend that companies should be free to operate without rules.
The unions did their jobs in getting labor laws on the books.Fine ,good for them ,they fulfilled their raison d'etre .If you think Boeing is going to exploit the workers in the new plant you're nuts . I'm sure it will be one of the choicest jobs to have in the region.

Its not a matter of them exploiting workers in the new plant, not at all. Its if they exploit the workers in the old plant, is what the lawsuit is about.

Then Steve is right... the case is baseless.

That's what judges are for right? To consider the merits of a case based on the facts, and the rule of law? Not some idealogical feelings?

You and Steve make lousy judges wouldn't you? Wonder what those workers would feel like when the old plant closes and the new one picks up more contracts, and what the new plant will be like, when they close that one, and move to India, South America, or Europe, where the rest of there corporation is?

Can't happen huh? Wrong! It has already, and been happening for decades. But you love that free market don't you?? Seen the economy lately, the global economy?? That's a direct result of the free market gone wild.

Hope the workers don't get thrown to the mercy of those "activist" judges repubs warn us about! That's another "Current Event" though.

You apparently don't like win-win either. And funny they Texas, a right-to-work state as you know, has created more jobs than most states out together. That's the free market. Oh, and Boeing has facilities here as well and they still added jobs in Washington.

If they prevent Boeing from opening a domestic plant they surely will move overseas .Yes I like the free market a lot ;and I'm sure you don't mind all the foreign companies who have opened shop here and employ American workers .
What you forget is that the free market is a 2 way street . Foreign owned companies account for the hiring of millions of American workers and servicing their operations multitudes more. Whole communities have been revived with foreign investment here .

But re-live the mistakes of the 1930s .We are well on our way .

That's the free market. Oh, and Boeing has facilities here as well and they still added jobs in Washington.Hello again, Steve:

May I remind you that Boeing is adding jobs because they got an ORDER - NOT because "uncertainty" has been eliminated.

excon

Without demand there is no free market, and the mistakes of the 30's was/is the same as now, repubs watering down job growth policies and trying to let the free market do its will.

As to the state I love, and live in Texas, there are more poor people here than in any other part of the country, and true, what's left of corporations that make stuff here are flocking to Texas, and other right to work states for what they always crave, cheap labor, low wages, and no worry about labor problems or raises for decades.

List of the poorest places in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_poorest_places_in_the_United_States)

While its true there are jobs being created, and so many companies here to create them, lets see how they fare in a few years when bread goes up, and the price of gas and doctors, but wages have not! And while we are on Texas still, its no coincidence that the new jobs here are health care, energy, and road construction, your failed stimulus, and student loans, and grants driven by your democratic President.

Just ask the Mexicans about what happened to them when US companies built 4,000 plants just south of the border and gave them jobs, and see where they ended up.

The free market is not the friend of the common man, never has been, so lets not pretend they have the final solution if you pander to them, and let them be free to do whatever they please because they know an honest man must work to eat.

If they were as fair as you say, you wouldn't need a union. But you will see that in the right to work states, when they don't give you raises, insurance, or some family time, then lay you off for easier pickings in India, or Alabama. Or replace you arbitrarily, for the dufus kid whose dad is the boss, and he needs gas money for his porch before he goes off to college.

You'll see all that and more, unless repubs get out of the way of honest, hard working,
People just wanting a good life.

End of another rant. Sorry guys, I guess I am as passionate as you guys are about what you believe.

Its not a matter of them exploiting workers in the new plant, not at all. Its if they exploit the workers in the old plant, is what the lawsuit is about.

Im just not understanding the rant here. In the article you had sited it says:

"The complaint seeks a court order forcing Boeing to establish the second 787 line in Everett, Wash., the unionized home of the company's commercial airplane business."

And when your talking of poor states according to some as far as the newer numbers the poorest state is Missippi.

Here is a list with newer dates the wiki:

The Poorest States In The U.S. (PHOTOS) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/11-poorest-states-in-the-_n_742967.html#s146770&title=11_Tennessee)

The union is contending the decision for the new plant was a reaction to the contentious nature of the company and union, going back decades.

Just some background,

Feud over nonunion Boeing plant crosses state, party lines | McClatchy (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/05/113767/feud-over-nonunion-boeing-plant.html#disqus_thread)

If you want more background follow what happened to steel companies decades ago as they built newer plants and entire towns turned to dust.

What happened to the steel industry in the 70's is being repeated with the - Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3407971)

That's why I rant, because I know what happens when a company moves, modernizes, and does what it can for the cheapest labor they can get. People get screwed, towns disappear.

First it was immigrants, then middle class workers who were children of immigrants, then third world workers, who's next? Wait a few years when the contracts have been filled, and the layoffs start, they always do.

That's why I rant, (or maybe I love debating my right wing pro corporations buddies, I have a few)

People get screwed, towns disappear.

So you would lock a company into the town without the choice of relocation ? Yeah it sucks when companies move or industry changes . But that's the way it is . Cities like Pittsburg reinvent themselves when the steel industry moves on . Long Island NY was once heavily dependent on the Aerospace industry too.But Grumman is not the employer it once was ;it moved some jobs out ;got merged with Northrop . The Island diversified ,created smaller business hubs and the small businesses grew and replaced Grumman as the dominant employer . It can be done . The only thing constant in business is change.

Hello again, Steve:

May I remind you that Boeing is adding jobs because they got an ORDER - NOT because "uncertainty" has been eliminated.

Duh. And may I remind you that Obama wants to crush those 1000 jobs in SC because he's a union-minded thug, not because Boeing has done anything wrong. And he will unnecessarily cost untold millions of taxpayer dollars persecuting Boeing to cater to his union cronies and untold millions to Boeing to defend themselves.

As to the state I love, and live in Texas, there are more poor people here than in any other part of the country

Apparently not. You can't get there by the fact that a couple of colonias (http://www.sos.state.tx.us/border/colonias/faqs.shtml) appear at the top of your list. In fact, you wiki lists Texas 32nd by state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income).

That's my point Steve, we can brag about the good that's going on, but fact remains, we haven't done enough. But I guess the people who live in the Texas dirt, with no real name for the dirt, don't count as people. Interesting, just as being 32 out of 50 is a bragging point.

Just like being 5th out of 5 fantasy teams, more work to do, but nothing to brag about... YET!

32nd out of 50 is a heckuva lot better than "more poor people here than in any other part of the country." And of course having 1200 miles of border with Mexico makes a difference in the rankings.

Poor in Texas is a thousand percent better than poor in Mexico, a non-union job in SC is a thousand percent better than no job at all, and my fantasy baseball team just rolls along in first.

32nd out of 50 is a heckuva lot better than "more poor people here than in any other part of the country." And of course having 1200 of border with Mexican border makes a difference in the rankings.

Poor in Texas is a thousand percent better than poor in Mexico, a non-union job in SC is a thousand percent better than no job at all, and my fantasy baseball team just rolls along in first.

Bingo!

I'd also like to point out that the last time I checked (which was, granted, a couple years ago), TX was 49th of 50 in education. There's definitely a relationship between education levels and employability.

Originally Posted by speechlesstx
A non-union job in SC is a thousand percent better than no job at all, and my fantasy baseball team just rolls along in first.

Why be satisfied with putting a band aid on a gun shot wound? (giving the job creators even more money, when they have it all already)! Why didn't Boeing just expand where they were?


You are having a great season so far, but its not over yet. Are we going to have a fantasy football league? Count me in.

Why be satisfied with putting a band aid on a gun shot wound? (giving the job creators even more money, when they have it all already)! Why didn't Boeing just expand where they were?

Why can't they expand elsewhere, too, especially if they're still adding jobs in Everett?


You are having a great season so far, but its not over yet. Are we going to have a fantasy football league? Count me in.

We started one a few years back but only had a couple of takers and that league is full. If those two are are willing and/or we can round up a few more I'm in. I always play several leagues.

Really ? Have we become so totalitarian that we can dictate to a business must that they must stay in a geographic region ;that no other state can benefit from a business relationship with them ? They may have plenty of reasons beyond screwing the employee to open a new plant somewhere else. I knew people on Long Island who routinely travelled between Grumman plants in NY ;Fla ,California ,Tx ,AND OMG overseas . So what ?

Frankly, if you'd ever SEEN the Everett plant, you might have an idea of why expanding there just isn't feasible.

The plant is so huge that employees have shifts in 6 minute increments otherwise the shifts would be insane for parking, entering, and leaving. And there's no ROOM to create more working space there---they could expand to another place in WA, but why bother if they have a chance to do it more economically someplace else?

PS--Boeing has plants all over the damned place. Some of it has to do with where they are delivering final projects, because their number one customer is still the US government.

Frankly, if you'd ever SEEN the Everett plant, you might have an idea of why expanding there just isn't feasible.

The plant is so huge that employees have shifts in 6 minute increments otherwise the shifts would be insane for parking, entering, and leaving. And there's no ROOM to create more working space there---they could expand to another place in WA, but why bother if they have a chance to do it more economically someplace else?

PS--Boeing has plants all over the damned place. Some of it has to do with where they are delivering final projects, because their number one customer is still the US government.

Funny how they never bring that up, about the space, but I have to wait and see if they do indeed pay less or have less benefits, and I doubt they would be that blatant.

And lets be clear, I am not against big business, just big business exploiting workers without which, they can't make a dime. No lawsuit will stop the plant, but they will get some clarity on work rules, and business practices.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/tours/images/K64532-14_lg.jpg

One PART of the Everett plant.

A better image: Google Images (http://www.google.com/imgres?q=boeing+everett+plant+photos&hl=en&sa=X&tbm=isch&tbnid=hZzQgP1nu1ISKM:&imgrefurl=http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2007/08/life_begins_40.html&docid=qEv2-rSXYt-J-M&w=480&h=290&ei=fwkuTvfdHaeBsgLE8-TFCw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=294&page=7&tbnh=156&tbnw=234&start=64&ndsp=11&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:64&tx=126&ty=105&biw=1037&bih=687)

And... as seen from space: Redirect Notice (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/files/library/boeingfromiss-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/2010/02/17/boeings-everett-plant-as-seen-from-space/&h=532&w=800&sz=134&tbnid=LGdiJyK_dYoYdM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dboeing%2Beverett%2Bplant%2Bphotos%26t bm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=boeing+everett+plant+photos&docid=cgus6ojp7dq60M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OAkuToLIHMSqsQL59IS1Cw&ved=0CC0Q9QEwBg&dur=223)

Notice the urban sprawl around it. The entire Seattle area is very squished because of Lake Washington, Puget Sound and the mountains around it.

There is literally no place to grow.

PS--the Everett plant is the largest building in the world by volume.

Just a note, over half of all jobs created (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-07-25-sortable-state-by-state-employment-chart_n.htm) in the U.S. in the last two years were in Texas, 262,000 jobs for a 2.9 percent increase. The president's home state added 33,900 jobs, a 0.6 percent gain.

In the last 10 years, 732,000 jobs were added in Texas - nearly 8 times more than the next best state (http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/on-numbers/scott-thomas/2011/05/texas-adds-732800-jobs-in-10-years.html). Arizona was second with 92,000.

I can't wait to see Obama challenge Rick Perry on jobs "saved or created."

Me either since Texas had high unemployment, before the recession, and high uninsured and all those jobs created or saved still hasn't changed that fact. I find that strange indeed, almost as strange as when Bush ran for president after he was Governor

Calculated Risk: State Unemployment Rates "little changed" in June (http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/07/state-unemployment-rates-little-changed.html),

48% of post-recession jobs were created in Texas, which does not have a State Income Tax - The European CourierThe European Courier (http://europeancourier.org/test/2011/06/18/48-of-post-recession-jobs-were-created-in-texas-which-does-not-have-a-state-income-tax/)


It attributed Texas' success to rejecting the model that prevails in Washington, described as pushing for more unions, more central planning and higher taxes. The editorial didn't mention the impact from rising energy prices.

On Monday, Fisher spoke to Diane Rehm on National Public Radio, reiterating the same themes. He acknowledged that Texas has drawbacks, including poor social services and poor results in education.

"But something is working here, and what seems to be working here is job creation," Fisher said.

Read more: Story of Texas job growth not that simple | Mitchell Schnurman | Dallas Business, Texas ... (http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/06/14/3152456/story-of-texas-job-growth-not.html#ixzz1TFkuyhfr)

One word for you, OIL. Another word for you, "stimulus spending from Washington.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Texas Stimulus Impact (http://window.state.tx.us/recovery/)

Stimulus spending in Texas city paves roads, finances clinics and more (http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show?id=19672)

Texas Watchdog's roadmap of TxDOT's stimulus spending | Texas Watchdog (http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2009/04/texas-watchdogs-roadmap-of-txdots-stimulus-spending/)

Forget Perry, Texas does have a good legislature, mostly. Perry tries to take credit.

Here is another one for your sacred job creators. As a result of congress failing to reauthorize the FAA, 4000 workers were furloughed, and another 90,000 construction jobs are on hold.

No end in sight for FAA shutdown - politics - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43890632)

More airlines raise fares to grab tax savings - Travel - News - msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43883363/ns/travel-news/)

Partial FAA shutdown drags into fourth day - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/26/faa.funding.expiration/index.html)

Seems the airline rather have the cash than create or save jobs, or pass the cash from no taxes being collect to the comsumers. So much for repubs worried about debts and deficits, but you have to admit, they are GREAT at creating them.

So now you think it is a race to create the biggest deficit. I am reminded that while Nero fiddled Rome burned and this is playing out again, as a rating agency has down graded the US rating. Some may not know what this means other than higher interest rates, but it means that other organisations, states or local government may also have an immediate down grading as no one can have a higher rating than the soveriegn debt of their nation. It is a ripple down effect.http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/business/2011/07/26/qmb.lake.egan.cnn?hpt=hp_t1

The US government, whether it be President or legislature, is gambling with the futures of the US people. If the goal is to deepen a depression then they will succeed. They are also gambling with the futures of other nations which may hold US securities. This is totally irresponsible

I agree Clete, but you have to understand that people make money off the misery, and irresponsibility of others. It's a booming business. Ask any banker, and consider what they made of this crisis in the first place.

When bad behavior is rewarded, you get more of it. So expect more.

I agree Clete, but you have to understand that people make money off the misery, and irresponsibility of others. Its a booming business. Ask any banker, and consider what they made out of this crisis in the first place.

When bad behavior is rewarded, you get more of it. So expect more.

People might make money this way Tal but it should not be a gaol to cause misery or perpetuate it. I liked your point about Texas job creation, something is working there, could be low wages, could be determination, might be more efficient use of funds. Bankers are like governments, there should be greater use of the firing squad, so that the mediocre suffer early retirement instead of being recycled

LOL, actually Texas is not that unique. The unemployment rate in some areas was high before the recession. The mainstream media just never reported it. Poor people know nothing but recession/depression most of their lives, but who cares when you don't see them. The current budget crisis, only distracts us, and keeps us hot and bothered about the wrong thing. More stealing? Greedy people NEVER get enough, so they come back for more.

LOL, actually Texas is not that unique. The unemployment rate in some areas was high before the recession. The mainstream media just never reported it. Poor people know nothing but recession/depression most of their lives, but who cares when you don't see them. The current budget crisis, only distracts us, and keeps us hot and bothered about the wrong thing. More stealing?? Greedy people NEVER get enough, so they come back for more.

Yes Tal and they don't like being taxed. There are a number of things that are not news unless it is election time and that is poverty, unemployment and disadvantage. The rich don't like giving to the poor unless their name is on it and there might be a tax advantage in it, this is why they are against government programs, The rich will always point to how generous they are but ask them to contribute the same amount in tax

Here'a another one for you Tal, Obama's buddy is moving the GE x-ray division to China (http://www.businessinsider.com/general-electric-x-ray-headquarters-china-2011-07). Time to sic the NLRB on 'em...

You know---I DO have to point out that SOME of the issue is how picky people are being about working.

In the Great Depression, you WORKED--wherever you could, whatever it paid. Some businesses (small and medium sized) simply CANNOT afford to pay more than what they already are. But people are milking unemployment instead of working a job that is "beneath" them. There are also a lot of people who are capable of working who are instead milking the welfare system.

No wonder companies move to other countries, where they don't have to pay as much because people don't feel "entitled" to tons of benefits and high wages.

Maybe if I didn't see "help wanted" signs every single day in places like Burger King, the local gas station, Target, Walmart, McDonald's, Taco Bell, etc---maybe then I'd be more sympathetic to the people whining "I've been looking for a year, but can't find a job".

I realize that there are reasons to hold out for higher wages if possible---I have a mortgage, a car payment and a kid on the way too--but there has to come a point where you stop wishing your old job at your old wage would come back (it isn't going to--especially the old wage part of it) and get off your butt and WORK, accepting a lower wage if you have to.

I'm frustrated with the whole thing right now, because the American people are as responsible for the recession as the big companies, mostly because of the entitlement attitude and the belief that people don't need to WORK for what they have--they can just put it on credit and pay for it later.

But people are milking unemployment instead of working a job that is "beneath" them. There are also a lot of people who are capable of working who are instead milking the welfare system. Hello Synn:

If you were laid off from a tech job, your unemployment would be MORE than a weeks paycheck from McDonalds... You wouldn't clean toilets at Micky D's for LESS money, than you get for seeking other work, would you?

There has been a push from the right, recently, to blame the poor and unemployed for the country's problems... Now, I'm no lover of lazy takers, and I'm not saying there aren't plenty... But, IF there are, and they are TAKING from you and me, that's the FAULT of the AGENCY that's doling it out... It's NOT the fault of the truly needy.

Look. If we have cops that ferret out marijuana smoke, then we have cops who can ferret out welfare SCAMMERS... That would be if they weren't MORE interested in busting a pot smoker... That's MY view.

excon

/shrug

I don't blame them for not taking LESS money.

I AM extremely upset that we keep extending the end point of unemployment, though.

Less money with benefits can be a lot better than unemployment without.

You let me know how those benefits at McDonald works out for you. And then let me know how unemployment works out after you haven't had a job in 39 weeks.

Then tell me how GE, can go overseas, and not make jobs here, pay no taxes, and get a refund. Then tell me how those job creators are being rewarded not to create jobs. Sounds to me like they aren't doing the job they were paid for, and should be fired, and lose the perks that "job creators" enjoy. So yeah sic SOMEBODY on them, oh wait, the repubs said leave 'em alone. So the problem seems to be how do we get repubs out of the way!!!! Maybe they are protecting the wrong people, YA THINK??

GE is joined at the hip with the Obots.

You let me know how those benefits at McDonald works out for you. And then let me know how unemployment works out after you haven't had a job in 39 weeks.

Dude, I speak from experience so rant at your own risk.

Just because the Prez consults a few job creators about creating jobs, doesn't mean they are joined at the hip. Repubs ARE joined at the hip with "job creators". Just ask them. Do I really need to prove that??

Obama wants them to pay a bigger chunk of taxes. GE especially, why are they NOT? Is it Obama, or Republicans?

You let me know how those benefits at McDonald works out for you. And then let me know how unemployment works out after you haven't had a job in 39 weeks.

Then tell me how GE, can go overseas, and not make jobs here, pay no taxes, and get a refund. Then tell me how those job creators are being rewarded not to create jobs. Sounds to me like they aren't doing the job they were paid for, and should be fired, and lose the perks that "job creators" enjoy. So yeah sic SOMEBODY on them, oh wait, the repubs said leave 'em alone. So the problem seems to be how do we get repubs out of the way!!!! Maybe they are protecting the wrong people, YA THINK???

GE is the devil anyway. Them and P&G and Walmart.

Seriously--I've been trying for YEARS to boycott GE for their business practices (their Keynesian economics and exploitation of workers, primarily). I can't do it. They're involved in too many products that you NEED on a regular basis.

Again, it all comes back to NOT having trickle-down economics, because it doesn't work.

They have plenty to trickle down, but the redistribution of wealth was the slickest magic trick I have ever seen. I mean all the things they accuse progressives of, and the Prez, they have been doing a long time, and we just sat and watched.

Maybe this is a wake up call for people to take their country back from greedy corporations. Now lets see who should I vote for??

Obama's economy is even worse than previously thought. And yes, it is HIS economy in spite of the fact that the left is still blaming Bush.


GDP Report Shatters Illusion of Jobless, Productivity-Packed Recovery (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/07/gdp-report-shatters-illusion-of-jobless-productivity-packed-recovery/242761/)
By Derek Thompson

Jul 29 2011, 12:59 PM ET 80
It's hard to overstate how much today's GDP report blew up our understanding of the recovery. The recession was deeper than we knew, and the economy is weaker than we thought. We weren't making new jobs, because we weren't making new things, period. The economy grew less than 1% in the first half of 2011.

Yesterday, analysts thought the economy was expanding by 2.5% a year. This morning, they learned GDP grew by only 1.6% in the last four quarters. This is a remarkable discovery. It's the difference between thinking we're expanding at a decent, if disappointing, pace, and knowing we're growing around half our historical norm.

Analysts also thought, as recently as twelve hours ago, that the economy declined 6.8% and 4.9% in the quarters bisected by Obama's inauguration. It turns out the actual declines were much steeper: 8.9% and 6.7%.

To adopt the president's favorite metaphor of the ditch and the driver: The ditch was a 33% deeper than we thought. And we're driving 33% slower than we hoped. Take a look at these graphs, via Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/american-recessions-and-recoveries), to soak it in:


And what about productivity? The silver lining of the recession had been that, with output climbing and employment flat, American workers were extending their lead over the rest of the world by supercharging productivity gains, which could pay off during the recovery. But now that the output numbers have been corrected, we have to change the story. Michael Mandel, an Atlantic columnist, writes on his personal blog:


Until this morning, the official data showed that the U.S. productivity growth accelerated during the financial crisis. Nonfarm business productivity growth supposedly went from a 1.2% annual rate in 2005-2007, to a 2.3% annual rate in 2007-2009. Many commentators suggested that this productivity gain, in the face of great disruptions, showed the flexibility of the U.S. economy.

Uh, oh. The latest revision of the national income accounts, released this morning, makes the whole productivity acceleration vanish. Nonfarm business productivity growth in the 2007-09 period has now been cut almost in half, down to only 1.4% per year

Illusion, the perfect choice of words to describe everything Obama. How about those jobs Mr. President?

Where is the republican input on jobs? They are so busy destroying government, they haven't even mentioned how to create jobs. You can't just blame one person and let the rest off the hook. According to you, he isn't supposed to create jobs, job creators are.

Where is the republican input on jobs?

Senate Republican Jobs Plan (http://portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=6e0dad20-777a-4811-a0a3-edaccbbedb89)


They are so busy destroying government, they haven't even mentioned how to create jobs. You can't just blame one person and let the rest off the hook.

It was the president and his media accomplices that made the debt ceiling the only "crisis" being discussed.


According to you, he isn't supposed to create jobs, job creators are.

I give credit where credit is due. He's the one that claimed his porkulus bill "saved or created" some three million jobs, so let him defend it.

We can argue it wasn't enough, but we have to also acknowledge that the right is no help at all. Funny how the ones screaming about what a waste it was went home and took credit for the results, and gladly so. Just look at Perry taking credit for jobs the stimulus created, and is still creating.

Further evidence (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/04/a-recession-is-being-priced-in-on-wall-street/) that businesses are afraid to do anything because of the uncertainty created by this administration.


Businesses are not comfortable hiring, taking on new projects, or doing much of anything because they have no way to predict what kinds of policies politicians will enact over the next couple of years and the effect those policies will have on them. What I’ve been hearing over the past week from major investors in the markets in New York is that to a man, CEOs and others with whom they speak regularly are frightened and paralyzed when it comes to new projects.

Have no fear though, Superman is going to take a taxpayer funded bus tour (campaign trip) through middle America as he "pivots to jobs" for the 15th time (http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/comments/pivoting_in_circles#ixzz1TuIpe7H6).

Heh.

Try to work for a proprietary school right now.

We can't go forward with ANYTHING, because the rules and regulations from the DOE are subject to change practically every MINUTE

Another good reason to abolish the DOE.

/shrug... the DOE does good things.

Let's get rid of the double standard for proprietary schools versus state schools, though.

It's like any other business out there---the organizations that oversee it are part of the lobbying/moneymaking in Washington DC.

Just like part of the reason health care is so expensive is because of the AMA.

While the president pivots to jobs for the 15th time, before he gets ready to "save or create" millions more jobs, his press secretary handed Republicans a new slogan: "the White House doesn't create jobs (http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-we-dont-create-jobs-2011-8)."

I wish they'd make up their mind.

P.S. Someone give Jake Tapper (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/04/tapper_peppers_carney_what_is_obama_doing_to_creat e_jobs.html) a show of his own.

Businesses are not comfortable hiring, taking on new projects, or doing much of anything because they have no way to predict what kinds of policies politicians will enact over the next couple of years and the effect those policies will have on them.Hello again, Steve:

That is the STUPIDEST thing I've EVER read about businessmen...

Let me see... I've got this NEW idea that's going to make MY business run better, but I'm NOT going to institute it because of policies that MIGHT be instigated?? Really?? Let me see. I've got this great NEW product I want to introduce, but I'm not going to because I'm worried about NATIONAL POLICIES??

Let me say again, that is the STUPIDEST thing I've ever read... The businessmen that DO what your STUPID writer said they're going to do, are going to go BROKE real fast!

excon

Excon,

Love you, but you're wrong here.

We will NOT institute new policies and ideas right now because of the high costs involved in making those changes... and we KNOW the government is looking at changing the rules on how our specific business is going to be able to operate going forward.

It would be INCREDIBLY stupid to implement new policies and ideas right now for us, because the odds are that we'll have to reverse those decisions in less than a year... and then all of that money will have been spent for NOTHING.

I'm betting OTHER types of businesses are feeling the SAME way as my business.

Uncertainty is a fancy word for FEAR, and fearful people make some crazy decisions. They are high risk business people. Doesn't matter who you blame YOUR fear on, its still yours to deal with. If you think you have a good plan or idea, have some courage and make it happen, and don't wait for someone to approve or disapprove it. That's crazy. That's not business. Now if you depend on DOE, or a bank or some other entity, well check with them and don't just sit in fear and do nothing. That's crazy. As you can see, this uncertainty crap is a smoke screen, because everyone who hollers uncertainty is already making loot hand over fist. The true job creators sit home because they are uncertain about a job, and the lending is so tight, because BIG banks don't lend to SMALL banks, and that's who lends to the majority of small business. Well guess who supports SMALL business, yep that's right, consumers with jobs, and a few bucks to spend. Those are facts, but uncertainty is easier to explain than DEMAND.

And what does Jakes grilling of the White House spokesman got to do with anything?

Oh back to uncertainty,


And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right.”

Lets not forget where this uncertainty came from, rich people screwing up the economy. Till then, nobody gave a rats patoot about the debt, the deficit, regulations, or anything else except making and spending money. So blame your uncertainty on whatever you want. Live in all the fear you want. If you weren't doing the right things before you found out you were robbed, then you probably aren't going to do the right things after, if you didn't learn from the mistakes made before.

You can start by NOT listening to any fool that says we have a spending problem, and a debt problem, because all you have to do is Google 1936 recession, and see we have been down this road before, and it wasn't WWII that saved us then. Also see who was saying no, and watering down the stimulus back then. HMM!! No wonder there is uncertainty, because repeating mistakes would make me afraid too.

Hello again, Steve:

That is the STUPIDEST thing I've EVER read about businessmen...

I can't help it if you refuse to listen to what they're saying.

And what does Jakes grilling of the White House spokesman got to do with anything??

Um, everything. Someone in the mainstream media is holding the president accountable for all his bluster about jobs. Attaboy Jake!

I can't help it if you refuse to listen to what they're saying.Hello again, Steve:

What "THEY'RE" saying?? Why listen to what THEY say?? I'M a businessman. I'm one of THEM. If I listened to other businessmen, I'd be BROKE. I'm successful because I listen to ME. And, I'll tell you again how I run my business. When I see an opportunity in the market place, I TAKE it. I DON'T consider the political climate. I DON'T consider what the Wall Street Journal says. I don't consider what pundits say. I don't consider how much tax I'm going to have to pay on my profit. I only HOPE there's a profit to pay taxes on.

But, that's just me..

excon

What "THEY'RE" saying???? Why listen to what THEY say??? I'M a businessman. I'm one of THEM. If I listened to other businessmen, I'd be BROKE. I'm successful because I listen to ME. And, I'll tell you again how I run my business. When I see an opportunity in the market place, I TAKE it.

You keep saying that.

No one quit doing business. No one is avoiding opportunities. That's why casinos are investing in Macau, that's where the opportunities are at the moment. If this administration wasn't such a "wet blanket" they'd be investing here, but this administration would rather Brazil drill for oil than the U.S.

I mean what don't you get? Tal and a gazillion other liberals keep whining about corporations sending jobs overseas. Well, what the heck is their incentive to expand in the U.S. under the current uncertainty over regulations, getting a boot on your neck for daring to tell the truth about what Obama policies are doing, or being punished for creating jobs as Boeing is? Hmmm??

They're going to do what they can to keep making money and taking advantage of opportunities, but where they're welcome, not where they're threatened by the heavy hand of this administration. That means no jobs for us.

I mean what don't you get? Tal and a gazillion other liberals keep whining about corporations sending jobs overseas.

They're going to do what they can to keep making money and taking advantage of opportunities, but where they're welcome, not where they're threatened by the heavy hand of this administration. That means no jobs for us.Hello again, Steve:

You're right in the macro - wrong in the micro (or vice versa? ) I don't whine about corporations. They do what they do, and owe NO allegiance to the US. I don't have a problem with that. I AM that.

Where you're wrong is, it's NOT Obama or his policies. It's the free trade policies started under Reagan and exacerbated by Clinton. THAT'S where the problem is. But, THAT'S cool, too, because we have the ability to SHIFT our economy to stay ahead of the world. At least, we USED to.

When the Japanese successfully attacked our car industry, we developed the computer industry. When China and Mexico and the rest of the world HAS, what USED to be our manufacturing industry, we need to SHIFT again. That only happens WITH government support. The computer industry got is seed FROM government. Our NEXT industry will too, if you right wingers would get out of the way.

This is NOT a time to cut education. This is NOT a time to let our bridges fail. This is NOT a time to CUT subsidy's to companies that CAN foment the next industrial revolution. The Wright Brothers days are long past.

excon

That's all great, ex, but the only "industrial revolution" that this administration is friendly to is a "green" revolution and that's a farce. Otherwise he's created a HOSTILE business environment and he will continue to FAIL at contributing to a growth environment as long as he does so.

That's all great, ex, but the only "industrial revolution" that this administration is friendly to is a "green" revolution and that's a farce. Otherwise he's created a HOSTILE business environment and he will continue to FAIL at contributing to a growth environment as long as he does so.
I'm sure the tax credits the federal government will give to businesses that hire unemployed vets won't help the economy.

That's all great, ex, but the only "industrial revolution" that this administration is friendly to is a "green" revolution and that's a farce. Hello again, Steve:

Speaking as a businessman, I see NOTHING farcical about energy, or the JILLIONS to be made when the investments pan out. And, I have no doubt that they WILL pan out, because NEED is the engine of prosperity. Plus, I'm not ready to move into a yurt.

Besides, you, yourself complain about how much money the Goricle is making from it. What? You think that's the ONLY opportunity?

I leave you with this thought... I'm sure way back when, if somebody said that they were going to put transistors on a chip, somebody else called it a farce.

excon

No one can even really define what a "green job" is. This was his bluster in 2008:

"We'll invest $15 billion a year over the next decade in renewable energy, creating five million new green jobs that pay well, can't be outsourced and help end our dependence on foreign oil."

How's he doing? So far, $80 billion has been spent on an estimated 225,000 "green jobs" that have been "saved or created" according to his Council of Economic Advisers. That's $355,555 per job if my math is correct. A HUGE waste of taxpayer money. Give me $355,555 and I promise you I can create more than one job.

No one can even really define what a "green job" is.
Bill Clinton has rattled off a list from time to time. Painting city rooftops white is one of them. City rooftop gardens is another. Urban gardens is another. Want more ideas?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/06/19/it-s-still-the-economy-stupid.html

No one can even really define what a "green job" is. This was his bluster in 2008Hello again, Steve:

Nice change up.

But, if you'll notice, my posts don't mention Obama or his policies.. Frankly, they represent what I would do, if you put ME in charge. Now, I don't know IF the government will follow my recommendations, or not... But, that's NOT going to stop me from making 'em.

excon

Want more ideas?Hello WG:

How about hiring a few people to build mirror farms in the desert? Plus, a few smaller ones up North. The sun shines up there too, doesn't it?

excon

Hello WG:

How about hiring a few people to build mirror farms in the desert? Plus, a few smaller ones up North. The sun shines up there too, doesn't it?

excon
Tell me more about how that would work. Sounds egotistical.

Tell me more about how that would work. Sounds egotistical.

World's Largest Solar Power Plant Coming To CA Mojave Desert | Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the World (http://inhabitat.com/mojave-desert-solar-power-fields/)

Nice change up.

What changeup? It was a continuation of the previous thought.


But, if you'll notice, my posts don't mention Obama or his policies

Of course I've noticed. It doesn't change the fact that this administration has been hostile to business.

Tell me more about how that would work. Sounds egotistical.Hello again, WG:

I don't know about ego.. And, I'm using the wrong terminology. I googled mirror farms and it didn't do it.. All I know, is there are power plants in the Southeast desert that use mirrors to concentrate the suns energy to heat up vats of oil that boil water and make steam.. I read that a farm 10 miles by 10 miles could supply enough energy for the entire nation. The problem is that electricity can't be efficiently transported very far. That's why I suggested a few of these plants up north.

That's all I know, and it ain't much.

excon

Hello NK:

Man, you're Johnny on the spot!

excon

World’s Largest Solar Power Plant Coming To CA Mojave Desert | Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the World (http://inhabitat.com/mojave-desert-solar-power-fields/)
I was afraid cattle and desert creatures would stand in front of the mirrors and admire themselves. :D I'm glad I'm wrong.

Of course I've noticed. It doesn't change the fact that this administration has been hostile to business.Hello again, Steve:

Hostile to business?? Dude! If you call making sure the banks don't SCREW their customers any more with those teeny, tiny pieces of paper that they send you in your credit card statement every now and then.. You know the ones.. They're written like that so you DON'T read them. They don't want you to read them, because they're raising your rates or changing your agreement in ways that you WOULDN'T like.

If you call fixing THAT being hostile to business, sign me up!

excon

I was afraid cattle and desert creatures would stand in front of the mirrors and admire themselves. :D I'm glad I'm wrong.
I wasn't sure if you were making a funny or not. I'd need to hear the inflection in your voice and the smirk on your face. Damn this textual medium! :)

I wasn't sure if you were making a funny or not. I'd need to hear the inflection in your voice and the smirk on your face. Damn this textual medium! :)
I'll virtually smirk and giggle next time. :)

Hostile to business???

How about dragging them before Congress for telling the truth about Obamacare consequences? Threatening them with a boot on more than one part of their anatomy? Increased regulation, suing a company for creating jobs, threatening new taxes, slamming CEO's and on and on. The one sector where growth has occurred under Obama is government jobs.

We've been over this enough, all I did was inform you of what business is saying. If you don't believe them, oh well. If that many businessmen and women say they're holding back because of his policies and the uncertainty, someone should take heed instead of campaign trips across America.

... all I did was inform you of what business is saying.That seems more important to you than what people are saying, being screwed over by insurance companies or not being able to offer any health insurance at all. Are you more concerned with corporations than people?

That seems more important to you than what people are saying, being screwed over by insurance companies or not being able to offer any health insurance at all.

That's the problem with you, NK, you base your opinion of me on assumptions.


Are you more concerned with corporations than people?

Right, I'm the one who's been asking people to give a child a chance and you think I'm more concerned abut corporation than people? See? You don't pay attention to what I actually say.

What I will say is this, a corporation pays my salary and pays 100 percent of my health insurance. I SHOULD be concerned for it, and with the uncertainty Obamacare is creating and the way it's driving up costs I'm concerned I may not have insurance in the next year or two.

Here you go. Unlike the guy that robbed a bank because he needed health care, the guy who hoped he'd be shot (http://wusa9.com/news/article/161244/373/White-House-Fence-Jumper-It-Was-A-Cry-For-Help) for scaling the White House fence because he couldn't find a job seems to have been missed by the major networks.


WASHINGTON (WUSA) -- The man who jumped a White House fence Tuesday night talked to us Wednesday after a court appearance.

James Dirk Crudup told 9NEWS the move was a cry for help because he can't find a job in this economy. Crudup says he jumped the fence with partial hopes of being shot by police because he has six kids with two women and felt like a deadbeat dad.

"Any real man would want to provide for their children and in today's economy it is so hard that especially when you have labors you can not make those achievements and the ridicule that I received and feel, you can't imagine," said Crudup.

As he president pivots to jobs for the 15th time maybe his "singular focus (http://nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-on-economy-things-will-get-better--20110805)" on jobs could start with this fellow.

He wouldn't have to keep pivoting to jobs if the congress would do there job. We wouldn't be unemployed if the job creators would do there jobs, and we would have to blame one person if everybody was working instead of whining, especially the job creators who are complaining about uncertainty, who didn't whisper a peep about uncertainty when they tanked the economy, and are still making money hand over fist. Yeah they would be who I would listen to, (sarcasm)!!

So you whine about one guy whose trying, and keep giving money to the guy that really screwed you, and keeps screwing you, because fact is your paycheck is still the same as it was 15 years ago when your job creators ran overseas, and started creating jobs there. And still are.

Simply amazing how you rather put down one lousy guy who is trying to put a band aid on your booty for 3 freakin' years, because they one you worshiped has been screwing you for 15 YEARS. Fact is if it weren't for the Tea party, and republicans (right wing ones not the ones who have sense, and can see beyond their own nose), this recession would be behind us.

Now you can sit and be satisfied with the way things were done, but sooner or later you will have to evolve and grow to a better way of doing things. Doing nothing is not an option, and just so you know, Gore isn't the only on investing in a GREEN future, all the energy money guys are. Just ask T Boone Pickens what he is doing with his tax break money. Texas has more wind farms than any state, except California, but repubs are sitting on all his infrastructure, and grid upgrades. All you righties know is whine, obstruct, and blame every body but yourselves.

Too bad we ain't buying it no more. Now shut up and let us put that band aid on your butt, so we can debate about doing more, not less.

I got even more on the hypocrisy of your health care position, but that can wait.

Too bad we ain't buying it no more. Now shut up and let us put that band aid on your butt, so we can debate about doing more, not less.

Tell me how you really feel, tal. And while you're at it, whine about how Democrats thought more minorities should own homes so they forced lenders to loan money to people who weren't credit-worthy. Then you can whine about Democrats who repeatedly ignored Bush's 17 warnings about Freddie and Fannie and said NOTHING was wrong with them.

P.S. I wouldn't whine about one guy had it not been for the constant beating you guys gave Bush over jobs, Obama's repeated bluster about all the jobs he's "saved or created," the 5 million "green jobs" he's going to create, the joke that was "recovery summer," the stupid claims about how the economy is turning around and the fact they're still blaming Bush.

Its simple math, when the consumer who creates demand by spending, pays off his bills enough to get back to spending, then small businesses will hire again, so until then, government has to spend, and invest, and NOT cut.

Too much cutting and not investing, or spending makes us like Europe, who ain't doing that great last I looked. Yeah that's right, fact is big corporations don't create jobs, they meet demands, and make a profit out of meeting that demand.

The true job creators are the ordinary folks that buy stuff, and without any rise in wages in 15 years, we got mired in debts we have to pay, and that takes time. And that's where I want my tax dollars to go, not to a fat cat who is making money without me spending, and taking even more of those tax dollars in cuts that have helped him make even more money off my back.After I bailed his greedy butt out of a jam.

You'd think he would appreciate it!!

I don't want the government to bail ANY of us out, frankly.

I don't think anyone is getting how SERIOUS the debt in this country is.

We NEED to tax more. Tax the poor and the rich more--the middle class has put up with the squeeze for 30 years now, because there's nothing the fat cats would like more than to eliminate the middle class.

Stop government spending on ANYTHING unnecessary and start TAXING all of that unnecessary crap by the use. Tax by use would change a lot of the ways people take crap for granted.

I don't want the government to bail ANY of us out, frankly. Hello again, Synn:

I don't either.. But, when we LET corporations get TOO BIG TO FAIL, if we let 'em go, we go DOWN with 'em. That ain't good for us.

So, the obvious answer to ME is, we shouldn't let 'em get that big... But, there's a LOT pushback on that notion from the right... I don't know why. Of course, my solution is right.

Yours too. The wealthy HAVE recovered whereas the poor haven't. I think they can afford to pay a few sheckles more in taxes.

excon

I would ordinarily have a comment but the moderators here now apparently speak for me.

Hello again, Steve:

So, are you going to the Christapalooza today?

excon

Apparently what we need to get this economy going is a good alien invasion according to Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman.

nhMAV9VLvHA

That's it, a nice space alien invasion would jump start the economy. Or, as Fareed Zakaria suggested, have the feds hire people to dig ditches and then fill them back up. The ultimate "shovel ready job." Zero value to it, but shovel ready.

Or the wealthy kicking in with their fair share, according to Warren Buffett and a lot of wealthy people.

"Buffett noted Monday that the mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most investment income but practically nothing in payroll taxes. The middle class, meanwhile, typically falls into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets and is hit with heavy payroll taxes. He said Washington legislators 'feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species.'

Buffett said he knows many of the mega-rich well, and most wouldn't mind paying more in taxes, especially when so many fellow citizens are suffering."

He parrots the same conservative mantra of inciting fear to reach the wanted goal. Krugman in this case makes a out-of-this-world simili while the conservatives actually do spread fear to reach their goals.

Making sand bags for a future flood can't be a waste of time. What no more floods? Well even during a drought, you can have a flood.

Buffett can cut a check any time he wants . He's one of those phony capitalists that the left normally belly aches about.. with his cashing in on bailouts ,subsidies and pork.

I got an even better idea... a multi-billionaire surcharge. Anyone like Buffett and Gates who has as net worth of $40 billion ,and think they are under taxed
Can cut a check for $39 billion to the redistributionists they loves so much .

Buffett's cutting those checks -- "More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death."

Good for him . Obviously he thinks that only the government is good enough to distribute our wealth... so he should have no problem giving it up now in taxes .
He's a piece of work . Much of his wealth is coming from Goldman Sachs holdings.

good for him . obviously he thinks that only the government is good enough to distribute our wealth
So who do you want to distribute your wealth? (Pssst, YOU are the government.)

Buffett's cutting those checks -- "More than 99% of my wealth will go to philanthropy during my lifetime or at death."

How much of that philanthropy will be directed to the federal government?

WG ,I think I can decide where the wealth I've earned can go . I don't begrudge the hypocrite Buffett his choice either.

What Buffet is pushing for however is a hit others bottom line ;Not himself. He's already figured out how to pay zero taxes .
http://us.mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=ce4iq36ru6tkd
If taxed too heavily he'll direct his accountants to shelter more.

So when I hear him call for a flat tax that eliminates the loopholes he takes full advantage of then I'll believe he's sincere.

Cut the loopholes.

On the first leg of his 3 day campaign... I mean "economic bus tour", Obama had some mandates... oops, advice, for automakers.

“You can’t just make money on SUVs and trucks,” Obama said (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/176917-obama-to-auto-industry-you-cant-just-make-money-on-suvs-and-trucks) during a town hall forum in Cannon Falls, Minn. “There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market. People are going to try to save money.”

Here's the guy who can't seem to prevent the stock market from taking a dive while he speaks telling automakers they "have got to understand the market."

So what does the market say? The Ford F series pickup and the Chevy Silverado pickup occupy the first two spots as usual. Looks like pickup sales are still well ahead of anything else. There really is a place for SUV's and trucks, nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 12, 17, 18 & 20.

Hello again, Steve:

It's a smart political move.. It stands to reason that if you limit the amount of pickups, you limit the amount of right wingers.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

It's a smart political move.. It stands to reason that if you limit the amount of pickups, you limit the amount of right wingers.

You'll have to pry our pickups out of our cold, dead hands. I think it's more a matter of survival, lefties don't want to be driving their little tin can hybrids on the same streets as our full size trucks... especially after his new mileage standards take effect.

P.S. He's offering his advice to automakers while riding in a Canadian-built bus (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/canucklehead_obama_bus_ted_gyztvw89k5MyKNS4B7Qp7O) .

P.S. He's offering his advice to automakers while riding in a Canadian-built bus (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/canucklehead_obama_bus_ted_gyztvw89k5MyKNS4B7Qp7O) .Hello again, Steve:

Didn't we give this guy a 747? Wassa matter? Is it in the shop?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Didn't we give this guy a 747? Wassa matter? Is it in the shop?

Yeah we did, but it's campaign time. He has to try and look like one of us and feel our pain and all that.

Not like Slick Rick balancing the budget, and creating jobs off stimulus money. Oh that's right, its campaign talk.

Supporting the American worker Obama administration style...


Obama Labor Boss Buys Canadian-Built Car (http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/08/31/obama-labor-boss-buys-canadian-built-car)
Says purchase was to show support for American workers

To show her support for American workers, President Obama's labor secretary, Hilda Solis, has junked the standard black limo and purchased a new Chevrolet Equinox to ride around Washington in. The problem: the crossover SUV is built and assembled in Canada from parts also made in Canada.

Solis proudly arrived at a media breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor today in the shiny silver vehicle, which she has dubbed the "bullet." She was asked about why she traded the standard-issue limo for the SUV. "What better example could I set if I encouraged my staff to go and purchase and seek how we could acquire a vehicle that would for me would send a signal that we're for supporting our American workers, American-made products, fuel efficient as well," she told the Monitor's Dave Cook, who provided this video of her answer.

Good thing we have all those smart people running the country now. That'll create tons of American jobs, buy Canadian!

How does one find out which plant an American car is built in?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Equinox




Canada (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2089.htm)


POP/Population (2009 est.): 33.7 million.

Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2008)--$264.2 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2008, 63% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2008)--$347.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2008, 75% of Canada's exports went to the United States.


The new 2.4-liter straight-4 engine made in the US (Tonawanda, NY & Spring Hill, Tn.), produces 182 hp (136 kW) and 172 lb·ft (233 N·m) torque, and achieves up to 22 mpg-US (11 L/100 km; 26 mpg-imp) (9.35 km/L) (city), 32 mpg-US (7.4 L/100 km; 38 mpg-imp) (13.6 km/L) (highway).

What are you an isolationist??

How does one find out which plant an American car is built in?
From Vehicle Identification Number - VIN Numbers: Free online search for car or truck VIN numbers. Find information on auto decoders and DMV record links. (http://www.vehicleidentificationnumber.com/vehicle_identification_numbers_vin_info.html)

A car's vehicle identification number (VIN) is the identifying code for your SPECIFIC automobile. It is your car's fingerprint.

It sets [your] vehicle apart from the millions of vehicles out there. Recently the VIN is reflected by 17 digit characters. It displays a car's uniqueness and manufacturer and provides a method to trace your car from the factory to the junk yard. Your VIN can be used to track recalls, registrations, warranty claims, thefts and insurance coverage.

Common locations of the vehicle identification number (VIN) vary but the following are places to look:

* Firewall of the vehicle
* Left hand inner wheel arch
* Steering column
* Radiator Support Bracket
* Dash by windshield
* Drivers door or post on passenger side
* Guarantee & Maintenance Book *Vehicle documents
* Machined Pad on front of engine
* Component parts as listed above -eg- engine, frame, etc.

Later model years - most common area's of VIN:

* Left instrumentation/dash plate by window
* Drivers door or post
* Firewall

Just ask the car maker, they'll tell you.


Manufacturing Facilities - CAMI Automotive (http://www.gm.ca/inm/gmcanada/english/about/Overview/operations_Ingersoll.htm)

Location:

CAMI Automotive Inc.
300 Ingersoll Street
Ingersoll, Ontario

Description:

CAMI Automotive Inc. builds the Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain.



Manufacturing Facilities - Oshawa Car Assembly Plant
(http://www.gm.ca/inm/gmcanada/english/about/Overview/operations_osh_car.htm)
Location:

General Motors of Canada Limited
Car Assembly Plant
Park Road South
Oshawa, Ontario

Description:

The Oshawa Car Assembly Plant assembles the Chevrolet Impala and the Chevrolet Camaro.

Oshawa Car Assembly Plant is the future home of the all-new 2011 Buick Regal.


Manufacturing Facilities - St. Catharines Powertrain, Glendale Ave. (http://www.gm.ca/inm/gmcanada/english/about/Overview/operations_ste_cath_Glendale.htm)

Location:

General Motors of Canada Limited
570 Glendale Avenue
St. Catharines, Ontario

Description:

The St. Catharines Engine Plant machines parts and assembles GM's famous Vortec brand of engines. The plant currently assembles 4.0L, 5.3L and 5.7L V8 GEN III Engines. 3.6L and 2.8L HFV6 Engines. As well, specific engine components such as aluminum blocks, cast-iron blocks, cranks, heads, rods and cams are also manufactured.


Or is that just more misinformation I'm spreading as "one of the worst offenders" ?

Cool thanks guys! And thanks Obama for the support!

So we shouldn't buy stuff from our trading partners? REALLY?

I don't min them purchasing Canadian cars... It's bad pr but not really a bad thing.

What I object to is American jobs being lost to Canadians because the Obots won't submit neotiated treaties to the Senate for confirmation.

Canada-Colombia trade pact begins as U.S. deals stall : 2011-08-17 – Canada Immigration Info (http://www.canadaforvisa.net/canada-colombia-trade-pact-begins-as-u-s-deals-stall-2011-08-17/)

So we shouldn't buy stuff from our trading partners? REALLY?

Nope, we should support our trading partners. We shouldn't support this tone deaf administration that just doesn't get it. If someone in the Bush administration had made Solis' gaffe we'd never hear the end of it, but this gaffe-tastic administration gets a pass. Oh, and as a reminder this is what Solis, the LABOR Secretary, said:


"What better example could I set if I encouraged my staff to go and purchase and seek how we could acquire a vehicle that would for me would send a signal that we're for supporting our American workers, American-made products, fuel efficient as well."

What better example could she set to show support for American workers? Buy an American-made car that's actually American-made.

It's a global company, and a global economy.

Its a global company, and a global economy.

OK, this is about her remarks, not the economy. So what part of her words "American-made products" while bragging about her Canadian built vehicle aren't you getting? And are you ready for the draft? My American-picked team is going to kick some serious booty.

She didn't go to Canada to buy it, and what would you expect a female to know about a car??

You kicked booty in Baseball, but I expect more competition in Football my fellow Texan. Hehehehe!!

Hey now... I may not be a car afficiando, but I know a little bit about cars!

Want me to start making comments about how little men know about cooking, cleaning, or changing diapers, Mister?

Got to agree w /Synn . I go to my wife for advice about cars . But I am an excellent cook .

Hey now....I may not be a car afficiando, but I know a little bit about cars!

Want me to start making comments about how little men know about cooking, cleaning, or changing diapers, Mister?

I cook 98 percent of our meals and they're delicious. I do dishes, wash and iron my own clothes AND swing a mean hammer. But I have a couple of car guy friends for cars.

Want me to start making comments about how little men know about cooking, cleaning, or changing diapers, Mister?I do/did all that stuff, better than the wife too.

I cook and clean and change diapers with the best of them, but my point was, ANYONE in America buying a Chevy wouldn't ask where it was built if they were in a Chevy dealership in America would they? I don't think she went to Canada to buy this vehicle, do you??

I cook and clean and change diapers with the best of them, but my point was, ANYONE in America buying a Chevy wouldn't ask where it was built if they were in a Chevy dealership in America would they?? I don't think she went to Canada to buy this vehicle, do you???

Tal, being in Texas you ought to know that a lot of people do want to know where the car they're considering is built. That isn't the point, this is our Secretary of Labor trying to show support for our American workers by bragging on buying an American-made vehicle. She'd damn well better know where it was built before sticking her foot in her mouth.

Wow, that is a HUGE faux pas. Maybe it's time to review all purchases by all Bush administration staff as well to see if they bought something that wasn't entirely made in the States! This is truly an issue that is important to all americans.

Wow, that is a HUGE faux pas. Maybe it's time to review all purchases by all Bush adminstration staff as well to see if they bought something that wasn't entirely made in the States! This is truly an issue that is important to all americans.

Now THAT'S hyperbole.

Now THAT'S hyperbole.
Wouldn't it be doing the same thing as the original article is doing: checking where products are made and then assigning shame?

No.

Back in the day, a Chevy was an American made car, and the hated foreign import was Toyota. Now if the Sec of Labor had bought a toyota, she would be correct in bragging, since they are made right here in America now.

She bought a Chevy here in America, and the people who sold it here got paid. That's what keeps the American, and global economy going, the more the money is circulated, the more it grows. No circulation, NO economy. Despite popular low information beliefs, rich people don't create jobs, CONSUMERS do. This whole economic downturn is driven by consumer being in debt, with no jobs, and the ones with a job, are paying bills, and holding on to dollars for themselves. Bet you are too. Rich people don't believe in hiring or investing unless people are buying, and what's telling that we all ignore, is rich people are running lean, and making big profits.

Now if people weren't in debt, and not saving but spending, you bet your booty, rich people would be hiring, so they can make more money.

So give the lady a break, she thought she was doing great buying an American car.

Sorry, can't give the Secretary of Labor a break for bragging on American-made products that aren't American-made. It's her job to know these things. Otherwise, I wouldn't care that it was Canadian-built.

Sorry, can't give the Secretary of Labor a break
Is there anyone you'd give a break to?

Is there anyone you'd give a break to?Not if they are liberals.

Not if they are liberals.

So now you're just resorting to outright lies about me. And think, just yesterday you had the audacity to call me "one of the worst offenders (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/regulations-good-bad-593685-4.html#post2883434)" for posting misrepresentation.

Some of my dearest friends are liberals, and If you paid attention you'd know I'm in more than one fantasy league with a few guys around here that certainly aren't conservatives. We have a god time.

But thank you for revealing who really is one of the worst offenders at misrepresentation, you.

Is there anyone you'd give a break to?

See my post to NK. But I ask, who gave Bush or anyone in his administration a break?