SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#113 Feb 22, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't bother actually reading the articles you linked on texas I take it.
Both articles state:
"And although job growth in California has surged ahead recently, Texas has outpaced it in 18 of the past 24 months."
Also interesting if you do the math and take out the cuts Texas made to its public workforce of 36,000 then CA is really only ahead and increase of 2.6% compared to 2.4% in Texas.
You also need to consider CA started from a much lower point than TX.
Bottom line: CA has 10.7 percent unumployment, compared with Texasís 7.2 percent.
You don't need to be a genious to figure out which state is doing a better job.
This isn't a selective a partial quote;
"The bottom line: California is beating Texas in job growth, though at 10.7 percent, its unemployment rate remains the third-highest in the U.S."
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-...
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#114 Feb 22, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>And North Dakota has a negative rate of unemployment due to the private sector investing in projects on private land.-0.1% They can't build houses fast enough.
And why is that Batch? Huh? Why? What are they investing in? Mostly due to its mining and shale industry. All because of Obama's failed energy policy.
Chip

Madison, WI

#115 Feb 22, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
This isn't a selective a partial quote;
"The bottom line: California is beating Texas in job growth, though at 10.7 percent, its unemployment rate remains the third-highest in the U.S."
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-...
Your correct it is not, probably why I did not put quotation marks around it.

I'm stil trying to figure out why the liberals would be excited about running an economy with the third highest unemployment. Then again I can't put my head that far up my a$$ to see it how they do.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Brighton, MI

#116 Feb 22, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
And why is that Batch? Huh? Why? What are they investing in? Mostly due to its mining and shale industry. All because of Obama's failed energy policy.
Are you being dumb on purpose? What they are doing in ND has little to do to the O's policy on energy..... Talk with miners in Ohio and Pennsylvania about the O's policy. It is in spite of the O that ND prospers. The O's policy is to shut down the Gulf and Western States. Why does the Federal Govt own land anyway???? Not in the Constitution as a responsibility of the Federal Govt.....
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#117 Feb 22, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Your correct it is not, probably why I did not put quotation marks around it.
I'm stil trying to figure out why the liberals would be excited about running an economy with the third highest unemployment. Then again I can't put my head that far up my a$$ to see it how they do.
And just what makes you think liberals are excited about running an economy with the third highest unemployment? You've obviously got your head up there far enough to believe it's excitement. You just can't see any redeeming value if your purview isn't 100% right. You just want to believe that taxes are the ONLY indicator of a successful economy or not.

Here's another little tidbit that should point out that I'm not the one not reading the articles all the way through;
"In a Bloomberg op-ed, wealthy investor Nick Hanauer also blew a hole in the GOPís line of thinking, writing,ďI can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate. Thatís why I can say with confidence that rich people donít create jobs.Ē
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/3...
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#118 Feb 22, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text> Are you being dumb on purpose? What they are doing in ND has little to do to the O's policy on energy..... Talk with miners in Ohio and Pennsylvania about the O's policy. It is in spite of the O that ND prospers. The O's policy is to shut down the Gulf and Western States. Why does the Federal Govt own land anyway???? Not in the Constitution as a responsibility of the Federal Govt.....
That is just too ridiculous to respond to. Especially as experience shows it wouldn't do any good anyway.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#119 Feb 22, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text> Why does the Federal Govt own land anyway???? Not in the Constitution as a responsibility of the Federal Govt.....
Why don't you think about that for a little bit and get back to us.....

Of course in less than a week the sequester is going to gut the defense budget, so I guess we won't need to own nearly as many military installations!
Oneal

Three Rivers, MI

#120 Feb 22, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you think about that for a little bit and get back to us.....
Of course in less than a week the sequester is going to gut the defense budget, so I guess we won't need to own nearly as many military installations!
Have they released actual numbers of what they plan to cut from defense?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#121 Feb 22, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't bother actually reading the articles you linked on texas I take it.
Both articles state:
"And although job growth in California has surged ahead recently, Texas has outpaced it in 18 of the past 24 months."
Also interesting if you do the math and take out the cuts Texas made to its public workforce of 36,000 then CA is really only ahead and increase of 2.6% compared to 2.4% in Texas.
You also need to consider CA started from a much lower point than TX.
Bottom line: CA has 10.7 percent unumployment, compared with Texasís 7.2 percent.
You don't need to be a genious to figure out which state is doing a better job.
Not to ruin your theory, but i would bet that the wages on the jobs in Texas are drastically lower, than those in California......possible many very close to minimum wage scale.....
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Brighton, MI

#122 Feb 22, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
That is just too ridiculous to respond to. Especially as experience shows it wouldn't do any good anyway.
Saul would be proud of your response......
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#123 Feb 22, 2013
Oneal wrote:
<quoted text>
Have they released actual numbers of what they plan to cut from defense?
"In dollars, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the Pentagon's base budget will fall to $491 billion in 2013, down from $554 billion in 2012. Thereafter, defense spending will grow with inflation. That would save roughly $500 billion over a decade."
http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/23/news/economy/...

"The Budget Control Act in 2011 requires $487 billion in cuts in defense spending over the next decade. Sequestration will cause an additional $500 billion in mandatory, across-the-board cuts at the Pentagon in the same period. And Congressí failure to appropriate defense funding for the 2013 fiscal year that started in October is added fuel to the fire."
"Stars and Stripes reported that Panetta notified Congress Wednesday of plans to furlough nearly 800,000 civilian employees one day each week beginning in April. The Pentagon is required by law to warn Congress of furloughs at least 45 days in advance."
http://www.ibtimes.com/defense-spending-cuts-...
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

#124 Feb 22, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay so, if you went to your lender, mortgage, car loan, credit card, land lord, I don't care which and they said they would give you a reprieve of x amount for an x amount of time and after that your payment would return to the original, and it did, that would be an increase? Really?!?!? That's nothing but playing word games.
We had the Bush tax cuts for a freaken decade and they didn't create jobs. The tax cuts weren't the cause for job creation. That's been made very clear.
What scares investors is uncertainty in the direction of the economy. What scares employers is uncertainty. More importantly employers are not going to hire when there is no demand for their products and/or services. When people aren't making money, or making enough for discretionary spending there is not enough demand to increase employment. And money has to be present to spend to create demand.
Which is why tax increases stall the economy.
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

#125 Feb 22, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
And just what makes you think liberals are excited about running an economy with the third highest unemployment? You've obviously got your head up there far enough to believe it's excitement. You just can't see any redeeming value if your purview isn't 100% right. You just want to believe that taxes are the ONLY indicator of a successful economy or not.
Here's another little tidbit that should point out that I'm not the one not reading the articles all the way through;
"In a Bloomberg op-ed, wealthy investor Nick Hanauer also blew a hole in the GOPís line of thinking, writing,ďI can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate. Thatís why I can say with confidence that rich people donít create jobs.Ē
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/3...
And why we can say with confidence that raising the tax rates will only stall the economy even more. Less disposable income, less to spend. And while I understand that you get sooooo excited at the prospect of Obama raising taxes on "businesses only", that is truly naive. The tax rates will go up for absolutely everyone, watch and see.
Chip

Hartland, WI

#126 Feb 22, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
And just what makes you think liberals are excited about running an economy with the third highest unemployment? You've obviously got your head up there far enough to believe it's excitement. You just can't see any redeeming value if your purview isn't 100% right. You just want to believe that taxes are the ONLY indicator of a successful economy or not.
Here's another little tidbit that should point out that I'm not the one not reading the articles all the way through;
"In a Bloomberg op-ed, wealthy investor Nick Hanauer also blew a hole in the GOPís line of thinking, writing,ďI can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate. Thatís why I can say with confidence that rich people donít create jobs.Ē
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/3...
First off Nick Hanauer has a philosophy degree and inherited his fortune.

His philosophy is that customers create jobs, however since he never had to work for his money he has never figured out that someone has to have cash to start a business before they ever have customers. And not everyone inherits companies with 350 million a year in profits has the cash and no concern about how that cash was generated in the first place.

Last time I checked people with no money to pay wages aren't hiring.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#127 Feb 22, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Which is why tax increases stall the economy.
...Weren't we in the midst of the huge Bush taxbreaks during 2007-2008, when the economy near crashed?...
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#129 Feb 22, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>...Weren't we in the midst of the huge Bush taxbreaks during 2007-2008, when the economy near crashed?...
That's beside the point don't ya see...
Dr X

Byron Center, MI

#130 Feb 22, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
But you didn't mind Snyder's talking point of how he was going to "reinvent MI".
What affects your personal decision making is not the map for a generalized assertion that tax cuts create jobs.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
"GOP Supercommittee Member Admits Bush Tax Cuts Didnít Create Jobs, Canít Explain Why"
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/3...
Not so much on the Texas argument "dude".
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-29/cali...
I understand your thesis. It hasn't however proven out in reality. I don't understand how you don't understand in the face of the facts over the thesis.
Maybe we should progress beyond Econ 101 to the higher than introduction levels?
Don't ever use Think Progress as a source. The FBI is investigating them at the moment and for reasons I will not divulge at this time.
Dr X

Byron Center, MI

#131 Feb 22, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
But you didn't mind Snyder's talking point of how he was going to "reinvent MI".
What affects your personal decision making is not the map for a generalized assertion that tax cuts create jobs.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/state...
"GOP Supercommittee Member Admits Bush Tax Cuts Didnít Create Jobs, Canít Explain Why"
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/3...
Not so much on the Texas argument "dude".
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-09-...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-29/cali...
I understand your thesis. It hasn't however proven out in reality. I don't understand how you don't understand in the face of the facts over the thesis.
Maybe we should progress beyond Econ 101 to the higher than introduction levels?
I don't believe the article from Bloomberg for a second. On the ground reality is more of a barometer than 3-day old sort-of news. On the ground is the system investors use in case you didn't know.
Dr X

Byron Center, MI

#132 Feb 22, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you think about that for a little bit and get back to us.....
Of course in less than a week the sequester is going to gut the defense budget, so I guess we won't need to own nearly as many military installations!
I'm with you on gutting some military installations. did they close the one in Greenland yet?
Really

Kalamazoo, MI

#133 Feb 23, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>...Weren't we in the midst of the huge Bush taxbreaks during 2007-2008, when the economy near crashed?...
Then I suggest you pressure your representatives to vote for tax increases. However, perhaps it would be a good idea to get your Senators to do something besides sit on their duffs and collect their salaries? Since it has been 954 days now since the Senate passed anything meaningful and last we looked, it takes both houses to pass bills for signatures? Maybe if you asked really, really nice, like you do to us, Harry Reid might do something? I doubt it, he gets a lot of his campaign funds from unions and their leadership encourages sitting on your duff and collecting a paycheck and nothing more.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Does Anyone miss Rval? (Nov '12) 18 min Ryleigh 52
Democrat's Husband Caught Stealing Republican C... 3 hr Oneal 4
Holder Says He Regrets Fox Reporter Subpoena .... 3 hr Oneal 4
21st century huberis flips the bird to national... Wed bobolinq 1
Sturgis latino festival (Aug '07) Wed sturgis urinal 6
Hillary says, "Businesses Don't Create Jobs" Wed Oneal 3
"I was in a state of denial:" West Mi... Wed cora arch 1
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]