so where are the jobs?

Bender asks an important question we should all be asking our President, and our current Congress....where are the jobs?

 

 

Right after taking office, the Obama administration promised to cap our unimployment at 8% if we gave them unrestricted power to do anything they wanted to do, to pass legislation without even reading it, giving Obama our complete and blind trust, and while many complained that was not a great idea, Obama got exactly what he asked for, every specific freedom he pushed for was approved................

 

So where are the jobs?

 

 

 

On Febuary 25th this year Princess Pelosi said this: "So this bill is not only about the health security of America. It's about jobs. In its life it will create four million jobs -- 400,000 jobs almost immediately; jobs, again, in the health care industry, but in the entrepreneurial world as well."

 

But where are the jobs? The average rate of healcare job creation both before and after the bill was created has stayed almost the same, so where is the 400,000 instant jobs?

 

 

 

 

On Aprin 23rd of this year Prince Biden said this: "Well, I'm here to tell you some time in the next couple of months we're going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month."

 

 

 

Well more than a couple months has gone by, so where are the jobs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama and company keep pinting their fingers at Bush and claiming they are not to blame for this mess but I saw a very happy Obama run for, and gain a political office he wanted. All he and his circles could talk about was how stupid Bush and company were and how smart they were so tell me, if they were so smart, and everyone else so stupid, why did they screw up so bad?

 

 

Obama and the rest of the royal family got everything they wanted and still they complain about Bush while holding themselves blameless.

 

 

I agree it was a mess, but Obama said he could handle it, was he right? Can he handle it? Based on all his promises that are only matched with corresponding failures it seems very clear that he and his cohorts cannot handle the responsibility and job they asked for.

 

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

So where are the jobs?

 

Right here waiting to open up as soon as the Democrats stop pretending like the private sector is the enemy. Only the private sector has the jobs, and as long as Obama is directly attacking the private sector, there will not be any real job creation.

 

IMHO

Dumb topic.

 

[attach=full]2984[/attach]

 

Obama has saved/created over 3,000,000 jobs. More in 1 year then Bush in 8. Of course, he wouldn't have had to do that if all those tax cuts to the rich actually created jobs in the first place.. so yeah... WHERE ARE THE JOBS promised by Republicans? Being slowly restored by Obama, of course.

.

.

Again, where are the jobs?

 

http://www.bloomberg...ody-s-says.html

.

.

What is that chart supposed to mean Bender? Obama has killed more private sector jobs than any other President in history. Lies claiming Obama has saved jobs cannot get you past the reality and fact that he caused the massive loss of jobs even while he was campaigning for President.

 

 

Obama spoke for a year about how he was going to go after the so called "rich" so what do you expect those same "rich" to do? They insulated themselves and cut loose some fat and waited to see what Obama would do, and Obama did not surprise them, he has come out on the attack and only now has he eased up a little not that most of America is pissed off at how irresponsible the progressives have been up to now.

 

 

So Obama has turned to more class warfare in his incentives, has said he is against the "rich" getting a break even though they are the biggest potential job creaters, and still these guys are in insulation mode, they are protecting themselves, and who can blame them?

 

 

 

 

 

Obama said he could fix things, and so far he has failed at everything he has tried, obviously this problem is beyond him and the progressive class warfare model will not work.

 

 

 

 

So back at you Bender, where are the jobe Obama, Biden, and Pelosi promised us? They are smarter than everyone else right? They know what they are talking about so when they make a promise we should believe them........right?

 

 

 

So where are the jobs?

What is that chart supposed to mean Bender? Obama has killed more private sector jobs than any other President in history.

Look at the chart again dumbass.

 

[attach=full]2985[/attach]

 

The JOB KILLING started way before the guy was even elected. He just happened to get into office after the decline reached it's peak.

 

And if you wanna feed me that complete BULLSHIT how he killed the jobs. What law did he pass to do that?

 

Sorry dude, it's all Bush's fault.

.

.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/number-of-illegal-immigrants-declining,18024/

 

The black guy on the right. Great quote.

That chart shows that the decline hit about the same time as the Progressives took over congress and held the purse strings.

 

 

 

The "rich" are not stupid Bender, they are "rich" because they know how to manage money and part of managing money is looking to the future and knowing what is comming. The second the Progressives took power the business world started hedging their bets and getting ready to insulate themselves from the attacks on the business world by those progressives they knew would come, as it always comes.

 

If conservatives had stayed in power the business world would feel more confident to take chances because they know most conservatives will not demonize them just to play class warfare, but there is no certainly with the Progressives and from the start of the Obama push to the Whitehouse, it was clear that some serious pain was on it's way for business.

 

 

 

Look to history Bender, they learn from that history, look at California, it is rules by progressives and jobes are leaving California in droves.

 

 

 

Let me ask you a question, do you think business owners have a greater responsibility to let themselves be victims of massive taxes from progressives, or should they be more concerned with their own survival in the long run?

 

 

Another question, you have 100 million dollars you can invest on creating a business, your intent is to make more than 100 million out of your initial investment. You see that current government regulations make it difficult to make a profit if they change the existing tax rules, and the current leadership seems ready to do just that, where is your motivation to take that rish 'right now' when things are so uncertain?

 

 

 

 

Another one, your doing well in the business world and your about to get involved in another business deal that could employ 50 people, but you notice that your about to break that magic income number of $250,000 a year that will impose a massive tax on your earnings and reverse a huge about of your income. Would you create those jobs anyway knowing that you will jump over that magic line and end up losing more money instead of making more money? Or do you instead pace yourself to be sure you come in just under that magic number and save yourself a lot of money with less work?

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see Bender, the point is pretty clear, why punnish any business person for creating a new job? What difference does it make how much money they have earned that year? The thing that should matter is the new job, not if you can steal more money from some guy who earned it.

 

 

Putting people back to work builds confidence in consumers and they spend more money, and you get more tax revinue from that then you will ever get from increasing a tax on a rich guy. While increasing taxes on the rich guy has the opposite effect, he protects his money, does not take as many chances in investing and creating jobs, and people out of work are sucking on the Government tit and scared of the future so they are not spending money....and that means less tax collection.

What is that chart supposed to mean Bender? Obama has killed more private sector jobs than any other President in history.

Look at the chart again dumbass.

 

[attach=full]2986[/attach]

 

The JOB KILLING started way before the guy was even elected. He just happened to get into office after the decline reached it's peak.

 

And if you wanna feed me that complete BULLSHIT how he killed the jobs. What law did he pass to do that?

 

Sorry dude, it's all Bush's fault.

.

.

 

 

to be fair, he's giving back the Heisman...

Okay, I knew that graph Bender was using looked weird but I was not sure what it was trying to say until I just got done researching it, and I have to say it is some of the best double talk Progressives have come up with in a long time.

 

 

[attach=full]2987[/attach]

 

This chart does not show job numbers, it shows the "RATE" that jobs are being lost during a specific month. Nice piece of dancing there to make it look like there has been improvement from things done by Obama instead of telling the truth that the first jobs to go are the less needed employees and the fat, then go entire businesses that could not make it taking with them everyone that was employed by that business.

 

 

What is shown in this chart is what we expect to see in any and all recessions, nothing Obama has done improved anything, it is just the normal way recessions work, easy to do without jobs are already gone, the job losses you see now are more powerful losses, these are people businesses wanted to keep after their initial fat cutting, but had to dig deeper to survive and start firing people they initially wanted.

 

 

 

If Bender wants to be completely accurate and fair he needs to show an actual chart on actual jobless numbers, one like this one:

 

[attach=full]2988[/attach]

 

 

Now here we see that even after 9/11 that caused massive job loss, out of control fires, floods, several hurricains, and two wars raging on two different battle fields, Bush and the Republicans kept unemployment relatively low and had solid job growth even after the 9/11 recession.

 

But something serious happened right after the 2006 mark, do you see how fast things fell apart?

 

 

Well what big change happened in 2006-2007 to shake the foundations of the job market and those who make new jobs? Well in 2006, the Democrats took over congress, they had the power to do as they pleased and some of their first steps was to scare the crap out of the private sector.

 

 

 

So when the progressives try the "it's Bush's fault" garbage, simply remember that under Republicans there was steady growth in jobs outside of the 9/11 caused recession (also caused by progressive weakness) and the second the Progressives took over with their mandated minimum wage increases we started to see a steady decline of jobs even before the big bank/housing crash.

Still trying to blame Obama and the Democrats, yet you STILL can't name just once piece of legislation they passed that caused the problem.. sorry, you fail. Just because they were in office at the time doesn't make them responsible for a downturn that started WAY before that.

 

If conservatives had stayed in power the business world would feel more confident to take chances

They had 8 years to do that... WHERE ARE THE JOBS? Why didn't they do it then?

 

This chart does not show job numbers, it shows the "RATE" that jobs are being lost during a specific month

That's the point exactly.. I thought Republicans were supposed to create jobs with all those tax break, but they didn't did they? They lost jobs, and lost them at an enormous rate. You can't escape or finger point the truth away.. where are the jobs?

.

.

 

 

.

.

Wow, just LOOK how the chart goes DOWN DOWN under Clinton & shoots up just before Obama's inauguration.

 

[attach=full]2989[/attach]

Still trying to blame Obama and the Democrats, yet you STILL can't name just once piece of legislation they passed that caused the problem.. sorry, you fail.

 

If you ever did read what is posted I gave you one great example, after taking power in 2004 the Democrats passed legislation forcing all employers to pay more money to their workers, that was a massive cost of doing business increase without anything to help pay for it.

 

 

As usual we always give you examples and you always pretend that we don't Bender, this is true for every discussion your ever involved in, including your refusal to answer any direct question you know you can't answer without admitting to some point that shows your progressives are not doing the right things.

 

 

 

Like this queestion you have dodged at least ten times now:

When Obama gave all Unions an exemptions to the new taxes on healthcare all other Americans are subject to, how did that help the average American?

 

I bet you dodge it again, lol

 

 

Just because they were in office at the time doesn't make them responsible for a downturn that started WAY before that.

 

 

Way before that? Can you read? Or does your progressive mind distort reality when that reality does not say what you want it to say? Look at the chart, the big swing up to massive unemployment happened "AFTER" 2004, "AFTER" progressives took power.

 

 

So now your trying to claim Bush controlled the democrats party too? Democrats were just his puppets?

 

 

Please.

 

 

 

 

They had 8 years to do that... WHERE ARE THE JOBS? Why didn't they do it then?

 

 

Again, look at the chart, Republicans had a very good flow of job creation outside of the progressive caused depression from 9/11. We had floods, hurricains, two big wars, out of control wild fires, and the 9/11 after effects that hurt business in ways we still feel today and even with all that the Republicans kept jobs high and Bush ended his Presidency with a net gain on jobs compared to when he took office, I give you it was a small net gain, but considering all the mess he had thrust on him like 9/11, I believe he did an excellent job to end up with a net gain overall.

 

 

Do you think Obama will end with a net gain? I seriously doubt it. Even if the Republicans do take over both houses, it will take a long time to fix the mess the Progressives made of things.

 

 

 

That's the point exactly.. I thought Republicans were supposed to create jobs with all those tax break, but they didn't did they? They lost jobs, and lost them at an enormous rate. You can't escape or finger point the truth away.. where are the jobs?

 

What the hell are you talking about? The Bush tax cuts were passed in 2001 and 2003, look at the chart, what do you see on unemployment during both of those times? You see jobless rates drop, the Bush tax cuts rewarded the so called "rich" to create jobs.

 

 

The big rise in unemployment started only after the progressives took over congress in 2004.

Now TJ's blaming people who got a raise in the minimum wage... man that's rich..

 

that was a massive cost of doing business increase without anything to help pay for it

Like Medicare part D?

 

Look at the chart, the big swing up to massive unemployment happened "AFTER" 2004, "AFTER" progressives took power.

Democrats took control in 2004? Hardly, it was 2006.

 

We had floods, hurricains, two big wars, out of control wild fires, and the 9/11 after effects

And excuses, excuses.

 

When Obama gave all Unions an exemptions to the new taxes on healthcare all other Americans are subject to, how did that help the average American?

He didn't, and were talking about Bush...where are the jobs? Your pointing fingers again.

 

it was a small net gain

Wrong, it was a MASSIVE loss that even carried over into 2009.

 

Do you think Obama will end with a net gain?

Doesn't matter, he didn't create the mess.

 

The Bush tax cuts were passed in 2001 and 2003, look at the chart, what do you see on unemployment during both of those times?

It rose. The chart makes that very obvious. Don't know what the hell your looking at.

.

.

Just to clarify, TJ's version of unemployment falling and jobs being created.

 

[attach=full]2990[/attach]

 

Oh sure... looks like a HUGE dip in unemployment to me.

.

.

Now TJ's blaming people who got a raise in the minimum wage... man that's rich..

 

So do you believe the higher wages came from thin air Bender? The progressives forced employers to pay out more money for the same work, that caused increased payroll taxes employers had to pay as well as higher insurance premiums such as worker's comp because those rates are based on factors such as pay rate.

 

With that one action progressives delt a massive blow to business. You say that it is fair to rape the businesses but in the end you eliminate the desire of the "rich" to invest in creating a business that employs people when you take away their ability to turn a profit. Each of your redistribution of wealth projects whittle away at that ability to turn a profit and sooner or later you loose the ability to encourage people to take chances.

 

 

 

Remember the saying, "with great risk, comes the possibility of great reward"? The progressives have changed it to "with great risk, there is little or no reward".

 

 

Democrats took control in 2004? Hardly, it was 2006.

 

Typo, I was pointing out that after progressives took over in 2006, you see the shart showing a massive leap about a year later in reaction to things like the the increase in minimum wage.

 

 

Look at the chart, in 2007 unemployment took a big swing upward, what happened in business to discourage employment? On On Jan. 1, 2007 the minimum wage jumps from 6.75 to 7.50 then in 2008 was saw another big jump and what happendd then Bender? Jan. 1, 2008 the minimum wage increases to $8.00 per hour.

 

Basically the progressives were playing big Union with all of America, used bully tactics to force all businesses in America to pay out massive increases in overhead while at the same time the economy was slowing down so employers had no choice but to thin their overhead and eliminate jobs.

 

 

When Obama gave all Unions an exemptions to the new taxes on healthcare all other Americans are subject to, how did that help the average American?

 

He didn't, and were talking about Bush...where are the jobs? Your pointing fingers again.

 

No?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/unions_get_pecial_treatment_in_health_AB053CwqPIJlIxXAm37DOM

 

First of all, I only asked this question here because you dodged it about ten times in other places.

 

Second of all, Obama and the rest of the Progressives have been so stuck on creating these sweetheart deals for their political supporters they have done nothing for the average American or for job growth.

 

 

 

So I ask you again, how did this sweetheart deal for Unions help the Average American Bender?

 

 

 

Wrong, it was a MASSIVE loss that even carried over into 2009.

 

Bush was not in control of America after 2006, you can't blame the massive changes forced by the progressives in charge on Bush, he had nothing to do with any of it. Even the housing crash could have been mostly avoided if the progressives had not blocked all attempts from Republicans to create more regulation to protect America.

 

 

So if we only look at the time Republicans had control of the purse strings, we see Bush and Republicans had a net gain in job creation and very low unemployment up to that point where Progressives came in and started screwing with sh!t.

 

 

Doesn't matter, he didn't create the mess.

 

Obama was in on part of the mess caused by the progressive controlled Congress in the last two years of Bush's Presidency. Bush was powerless to stop the damage the Progressives caused. Obama and the then and now in power progressive Congress has caused all of this with their Union style of being a bully on businesses.

 

 

It rose. The chart makes that very obvious. Don't know what the hell your looking at.

 

OMG, your so blinded by your need to make anything done by a Conservative look as bad as possible even if you have to lie to do it.

 

No legislation in tax cuts will have a corresponding result in employment until business has the ability to start taking advantage of those cuts, at the time the cut is approved, there is no actual money changing hands, but if you look at the chart, after the second and more specific cuts had a chance to take effect in the business world, you see a massive decline in unemployment starting in 2004.

 

Just like the harmful actions of the progressive takeover of Congress in 2006 did not start to show up in negative reaction to employers until 2007 and it compounded and expanded it's harm from there like a snowball effect.

Check it out Bender:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/16/democrats.obama.taxes/index.html

 

Looks like some Democrats are starting to understand this too....

 

"We believe in times of economic recovery it makes good sense to maintain things as they are in the short term, to provide families and businesses the certainty required to plan and make sound budget decisions. Providing this certainty will give small businesses, the backbone of our economic recovery, confidence and stability,"

 

 

 

 

It really is very basic logic, if you want the private sector to create jobs, you have to stop treating the private sector like the enemy.

I only asked this question here because you dodged it about ten times in other places.

There was a question in there? If I've dodged a question of yours 10 or more times it would only be because I never read ANY of your posts all the way through, I only skim them... I find you quite boring, redundant, too long and not worth the read, hey, at least I'm honest...but... It's your own fault for being such a boring cunt who repeatedly uses the same shit I read on dozens of other message boards... maybe if your vocabulary didn't consist of shit like "LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES, SOCIALIST, MARXIST, BLAH BLAH BLAH, it's all Obama's fault , whaa, sob, cry, I'm an oppressed white guy who wants to take my country back " I wouldn't nod off and skip what you wrote whenever I see one of your posts... Once you start in with that shit, I skip over that paragraph...but....

 

In summary. TJ's solution, tax cuts for the rich, and fuck the middle class. How DARE people ask for a livable wage!! It destroys our economy. His comeback... show me an article about spineless Democrats who'll suck Republican cock too if it keeps them in office.

 

BTW, you DID know the tax rate for the rich under Reagan was 50% right? How DARE Obama suggest we go to something similar to Clinton, which was even lower. Heaven help us if he ever went to the tax rate for the rich under Reagan, that would be a complete takeover of our economy, right?

 

But, in the end, no matter how much TJ spins it, the fact remains. If the economy wouldn't have went into the tank under Bush (and his tax cuts for the rich), McCain would have won easily because people would have simple said "Hey, tax cuts work, keep those liberals out".. But... it didn't.. It made people like me, who voted for Bush 2x, know better, and morons like TJ, keep licking right wing corporate ass bung (tongue in deep) for no benefit to himself or his country, only to corporate interests just like he was programmed to.

.

.

Okay, the usual hide your intentional dodging of a direct question with a lot of personal attacks has already been seen by you and every other progressive for many years now, but how about answering the actual question, that would a be a real change in your guys who always "claim" you are smarter than everyone else but when we try to get you down to the details, you refuse to talk about those details.

 

 

So let's try this again.

 

 

When Obama gave that sweetheart deal to all Unions to make them exempt to the new higher taxes on "Cadillac" plans used to actually pay for his big new entitlement, how did that move help all Americans?

 

 

 

 

You are the guy calling people like me names and looking down your nose at me so do us a favor as the resident Progressive mastermind Bender, educate us as to why that was a great deal for all of America to give Unions this kind of monster break the majority of Americans cannot get?

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone want to make a side bet Bender still will refuse to answer the question?

 

BTW, you DID know the tax rate for the rich under Reagan was 50% right? How DARE Obama suggest we go to something similar to Clinton, which was even lower. Heaven help us if he ever went to the tax rate for the rich under Reagan, that would be a complete takeover of our economy, right?

.

.

 

That's because when he came into office, it was 70% and he had to slowly work with a Dem congress to get them down to 28%, when he left office.

 

If Repubs don't care about the middle class, exactly what tax breaks are Obama and Pelosi talking about extending, and trying to rebrand as Obama tax breaks. It's not a tax break, it's letting people keep their own money.

 

That's the difference between a conservative/libertarian and a liberal/progressive.

 

A l/p sees all the wealth in the country as belonging to the government/society and talks about how much the government will allow you to keep.

A c/l sees the wealth in the country as belonging to the individual and talks about how much the government is going to take, by force.

That's the difference between a conservative/libertarian and a liberal/progressive.

 

A l/p sees all the wealth in the country as belonging to the government/society and talks about how much the government will allow you to keep.

A c/l sees the wealth in the country as belonging to the individual and talks about how much the government is going to take, by force.

 

Well said.

Back on the topic.

 

I know how the Obama administration are going to claim they added jobs.

 

 

IRS Inflates Employment Numbers Using Poll Workers

 

September 16, 2010

 

The Internal Revenue Service, for the first time in history is ordering temporary election poll workers to file income tax withholding forms. In breaking news from New York, the New York City Board of Elections which uses over 34,000 temporary elections workers, was ordered by the IRS to make employees out of all temporary election workers.

 

The IRS denies giving any order but the Elections Board in New York received a memo dated Aug 2 signed by Rosanna Kostamoulas Rahmouni, Election Day Operations Coordinator. In the memo, Rahmouni directs election officials to have every poll worker complete a tax form W-4 and IT-2104 as needed.

 

Furthermore, election officials in New York were warned that if this was not completed promptly, they would not be paid for any training classes or for work performed on election day. Most poll workers are retirees and receive

$100 for training and $200 per each day they work.

 

The taxes for such a short period, normally one days work are so small, leaving many officials to wonder what is the real reason for filing the forms. Well, if you add up all of the election workers in all 50 states, you begin to see the reason for the IRS request. Hundreds of thousands of workers man polling booths and work counting ballots throughout the country during and election.

 

Much like the Census, if these temporary poll workers are used by the federal government, these numbers would affect the unemployment figures put out by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics each month, thus giving a misleading unemployment count for August – November 2010.

 

 

http://blog.cityclix...g-poll-workers/

Even if they did create a "new" job through the IRS, that is again not a private sector job, only private sector jobs help the economy and help create new tax dollars to pay for things the Government does.

Here are a few of the jobs created.

 

Report: Los Angeles spent $70 million in stimulus funds to create 7.76 jobs

 

 

A new piece of evidence has emerged in the debate over the effectiveness of President Obama's 2009 stimulus package, and it's not good for Democrats. According to two newly released audits performed by the Los Angeles controller, L.A. spent enormous portions of the $594 million in stimulus funds it received on projects that created or saved just a handful of jobs. All told, the audits — available here and here [pdf] — examined $111 million in stimulus spending by the city's Department of Transportation and Department of Public Works, and found that the money went to projects that created or retained just 54 jobs. That works out to roughly $2 million per job.

 

The $71 million that went to the Department of Public Works, which funded 15 road-surfacing and similar projects, was projected to save or create 238 jobs. But according to the audit, the money created just 7.76 jobs — or slightly more than $10 million per new job — and saved 37.7 (the fractions are a result of calculating the number of jobs by hours worked). The Department of Transportation's $40 million created or retained just nine jobs, the audit found.

 

In a press release accompanying the audits [pdf], L.A. Controller Wendy Greuel said the job numbers were underwhelming. "I'm disappointed that we've only created or retained 55 jobs after receiving $111 million in [stimulus] funds," Greuel said. "With our local unemployment rate over 12 percent, we need to do a better job cutting the red tape and putting Angelenos back to work."

 

The audit didn't find any misspent funds or waste. But the breakdown of how some of the money was spent seems to indicate efficiency was not exactly the order of the day for project managers. The Department of Transportation, for instance, spent $9 million to install new LED lightbulbs in traffic lights at 1,800 intersections. Less the $228,000 in labor costs associated with the project, that's nearly $5,000 per location to change lightbulbs. Another project spent $4 million to install 65 new left-turn arrows, averaging more than $61,500 per arrow.

The stimulus package spent $5 million per job in L.A. definitely can't be the results that were expected.

 

Elsewhere, the Obama/Marx trickle up poverty model is working wonders.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39211644/ns/us_news-life

 

Yea!