Anyone heard from Eric?

Yeah, I am working three of those new jobs that are out there. All praise Dear Leader Obama!

David....I hate to give Obama any credit at all as I think he is the second coming of Jimmy Carter, but, you are right.

Can't blame the guy for everything. I think that the jobs would have come back without the huge stimulus. That was just a payoff to the unions and the Democrat cronies, and it dramatically increased our national debt.

However, many job seekers have dropped out of looking for work, shrinking the labor pool. Plus, many people are under-employed as well. So, whats the "real" unemployment rate? Its much higher than 8-8.5%. But, to give credit where credit is due, thank god the jobless rate is starting to come down.

Regardless how good the employment situation gets, Obama still has to go. Key reasons:

- Can't control spending
- Over-regulates industry/citizens
- Does not believe in developing our own fuel resources
- Wants to raise taxes on "millionaires/billionaires" (all of us)
- Believes in an entitlement state
- Has severely weakened our military
- Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq
- Socialist at heart...regardless how much he tries to make us believe otherwise

eric lavine wrote: the new jobs being created are not an illusion, the word used was stunning....people are going back to work, the backbone of any economy

The key is who is hiring and why? Have you delved into it?

Can you name the top 5 entities or industries that are hiring right now causing this boom?

let me get this right, Valerie Plame was leaked as a CIA operative in 2005, by what has her name attached many times to, diick Cheney's office,
now being a slightly informed american, outing a cia operative is treason, correct me if im wrong, but execution, is the penalty for treason....and you guys vote these fcks in office.
im sticking to the plan, history dictates greatness......

its not to late to switch to the good side of the force. lol

I considered it but responding to the made up nonsense blasted forth into every level of media by the heavily funded pretending to be conservative propaganda machine only serves to justify it a some sort of unshared but valid viewpoint.

Eric, whenever you have your screws checked; make sure they strictly adhere to the torque sequence.

You know I only pick on you because you're a small business owner. New this year for us(that we know of) is the requirement of an envronmental impact study to accompany a job BID. That's all well and good if we were drilling under the Grand Canyon and not placing lines where there alreay are quite a few. Think average intersection.   

63 Skier wrote:     When the created jobs were the result of the stimulus package, I'm in agreement with you. The jobs being created now are from the private sector, we're past the bubble of stimulus spending. I don't think they are an illusion. I've got lots of problems with Obama, but in this case I'm not sure I get the anger directed his way. No jobs, it's Obama's fault. Unemployment is up, it's Obama's fault. Now we have dropping unemployment and more jobs created, but somehow that's a negative on Obama? I missed something.

The unemployment numbers are highly manipulated. They were supposed to stay under 8% with the stimulus but went over nine for years. I am angry that we spent trillions and saw no results beyond paying off Obama's friends and the unions, those trillions will be a boat anchor on our economies future. Hiring is seeing slight increases despite Obama because the republicans have blocked his agenda and business is feeling some confidence in planning for the future. The media (the same one that bashed the economy under bush with 6% unemployment) is now we are celebrating an 8.5% which is primarily an accounting change from people dropping out of the work force. Another real indicator is economic growth which remains stagnate. The media talks of 8% unemployment as the new normal. Employment will not grow till the economy grows. Regan entered office with unemployment at about 10% three years later it was down to 7.5 and it was 5.3% at the end of his second term. He gave us results, Obama gives us excuses.

Are you better of than you were 6 trillion dollars ago?

That puts our spending in perspective. Not only are we in big trouble, but so are our kids and grand kids.

im curious Dave, does your spending include 8 trillion for the Bush/Cheney get rich quick war?

eric lavine wrote: im curious Dave, does your spending include 8 trillion for the Bush/Cheney get rich quick war?

Eric You seem to have inflated the factor by at least two. The Highest cost I could find for combined Irag and Afghanistan is 3.2 trillion. That figure is from Brown university's cost of war study and includes all ancillary costs including interest and long term veterans care. Of course much of that would have gone onto Bushes budget before Barracks Election, some of those are fixed costs anyway, so I would give Obama at least 5 of his six trillion.

63 Skier wrote: So, when Reagan accomplished that drop to 7.5, should all of us have said "it's all number manipulation, this clown is a failure, he'll never get it to drop further until the Dems get back in office"? See what I mean? When something is accomplished, at least note the accomplishment and take it from there. The unemployment figures are, and have always been, a questionable benchmark. But, it's what we have to work with. If it jumps up to 9.5% you'll be the first one to bash Obama for rising unemployment, you'll say the figures are real becasue they suit your agenda.

OK You pick two other economic indicators say economic growth, average income, percent in poverty, numbers on food stamps,Carters misery index, government collections ....., and compare Regan's (conservative policy)first three years to Obama's (Liberal policy). Let me know what you find.

Threadjack, Eric, I need dampner plate shoot me an email at jllogan1 at gmail dot com or post over on my "moving in the garage" thread so I can contact you. Thanks man.

.. back to politics.

eric lavine wrote: small business is 75% of this countries economy, the burden is on small business not large corporations, take away the havens for the big boys, i really do hate when some say big business pays the brunt of the taxes in this country, sure they do but at a rate of around 17%, let me make the rules

That's where I have a problem too. Like the picture I posted, both sides play the vote buying game. What you're talking about is the R side. They cater to one side of the spectrum by trying to keep their taxes low. The D's cater to the other side. I say, flat tax across the board and no loopholes or exceptions. Individuals pay a certain rate and businesses pay a certain rate. No matter the income or revenues, everyone pays the same percentage. Stop this class warfare at both ends and the ability of politicians to buy votes by catering to their particular group.

Why wouldn’t they be hiring, growth happens in America – population growth alone - as for looking at muliple factors Obama inherited a crippling debt, to go along with a record job loss rate, two wars, plus a war on terror (equal in size if not importance to the cold war or the time), finacial industry in free fall, automotive industry beyond free fall. With Reagan non war debt hadn't been invented yet - so he could spend his way out of it.. and did.

on a more serious note, Big industry in general has been doing well the past two years, record profits in many cases. Hiring lags as it always does but the great machine has been built and is ready and awaiting demand. Around here we have had the German’s and the Japanese move in and buy or start factories to take advantage of the talent pool in engineering/manufacturing that was left by the large American corporations buying each other up closing factories and moving to mexico/china. The pressure has even started to result in a few big US companies starting to reverse course and start to ramp up US engineering and design efforts once again.

It takes a few years to get designs and production lines ready but ready they are (for the Germans and Japanese, the us guys will need to hustle)… demand is the only issue and it has been kept down by slowness in lending and the leftover bubble of inventory in the commercial real estate and housing markets. But that is starting to clear as well. You have the silliness where the nut jobs in the house tried to bankrupt the country this summer that caused some people to put their wallets back in their pockets and you have the European issues that were caused by our financial collapse still making some people nervous but eventually the trigger will be pulled if we don’t find another way to force ourselves into collapse.

Those who ask for realistic comparison of Reagans numbers.. go look you will find yourself surprised.   Beside that, if you want to go back to the Reagan policies you are far to the left of current (Obama) on taxes, and far to the left of current (Obama) on welfare (as of result of the 90’s Clinton/newt welfare reform,) regulation is always an issue but evidence shows that net effect of republican leadership is complete lack of regulation on large well lobbying corps which results in major economic and safety failures while small and medium sized businesses continue to get beat up on by local guys. (Reagan – S&Ls, Bush – Mortgage/Securities, Both )Dems because they believe in government and their voters believe in government tend to regulate everyone and that is more fair in my mind. Personally, I swim in the water… and compared to 1980 my lake looks like crap and that to me is more important than any short term (10-20 years is short term compared to how long my lake has been around) economic growth.

The current crop of republicans keep talking about spending but other than Paul who would achieve it through defense cuts none of them have put forth a plan that lowers spending by any fact based assessment. All of them propose tax structures that take in less money and tax the poor and middle class more. Reagan would laugh all of them off the stage. Don’t get me wrong Newt is a smart guy, but he is slimy. At this point he has spent so much time coming up with arguments to fit the needs of the client paying him to make the arguments that even he doesn’t remember where he stands on things. Nearly everything Obama has tried to do was proposed by Newt in the 90’s, back when he was a smart public servant who merely liked to skim a little off the top.

Bottom line is unless you cause a financial collapse the economy goes up and down in pretty well defined cycles and who is president has little to do with it. No one with a brain signed up to run against Obama because they knew no matter what he did or didn’t do after bush had thoroughly decimated the economy it would be moving up by the end of a 4 year term. (Reagan’s early growth as Carter had bottomed us out with stagflation, clinton’s bounce after the collapse caused by the Savings and Loans fiasco, and now Obamas period of growth that will follow the financial industry collapse that contined through 2009) The current crop of hopeful nominees mostly signed up so they could get a talk show job with fox after the race or increase visibility for future runs, now they are shocked to find out they are the best the republican party has to offer America. (Ron paul I figure is in it to make the price of his gold future investments go up and so he can smoke the wacky weed legally in is declining years) Pretty sad really.

The old money interests however have not slept during these times of general government ineptitude. They lobbied hard, spent a lot of money and as a result we now live in an America where it is very hard to start and run a small to medium size business and compete with those who were born with a head start. The republicans say this is the problem with big government that cannot be cured… it gives them an excuse to not even bother trying. I look at who funds them and I wonder if maybe billionaires want lower taxes not because they think it is best for economic growth but maybe, just maybe if it is because it gives them hundreds of millions in return for their few million in lobbying/campaign money.

If you want to worry about vote buying – one side uses the money of the 1% to convince part of the 99% that the other side want their guns, are going to turn their kids gay, force woman to have abortions, tell them where to go to church, and steal all their money and give it to them blackies and mexicans. The other side has to “buy” the votes of the rest of the 99% using money from the very same 99% that they have to act in favor of… which has the best chance of working out in the favor of most of the country?