Jobless claims..

[huskerXman]

So we have 2 obama backers claiming 2 different things. one says Mitt said the government doesn't create jobs and one said Mitt said he will create jobs.

 

Either way it is a good job of deflecting..

those are both mitt's statements; that sounds like mitt is deflecting. or, well who the hell knows what mitt means.

 

 

haha, that may very well be.

[Ziggy]

Here lets be smart, two different kind of jobs, private and Public. Private sector are effected by government decisions but are not directly hired or fired by the government (except GM). Public sector jobs are created by the government, because they are government jobs. A president can hire and fire public (and GM) jobs, but can only cause hires and layoffs through actions that effect the businesses themselves. An example being coal workers being laid off because of EPA regulations being much stricter, causing coal to be not profitable enough to use vs Natural gas.

[huskerXman]

So we have 2 obama backers claiming 2 different things. one says Mitt said the government doesn't create jobs and one said Mitt said he will create jobs.

 

Either way it is a good job of deflecting..

those are both mitt's statements; that sounds like mitt is deflecting. or, well who the hell knows what mitt means.

Yeah, funny how that works. "Obama backers" quoting Mitt Romney is "deflecting." Love it.

 

 

it is, mitt has nothing to do with the topic of this thread..

[sd'sker]

Here lets be smart, two different kind of jobs, private and Public. Private sector are effected by government decisions but are not directly hired or fired by the government (except GM). Public sector jobs are created by the government, because they are government jobs. A president can hire and fire public (and GM) jobs, but can only cause hires and layoffs through actions that effect the businesses themselves. An example being coal workers being laid off because of EPA regulations being much stricter, causing coal to be not profitable enough to use vs Natural gas.

ok, that does nothing to explain how mitt criticizes obama for the unemployment, claims that he will create 12 mil. jobs, and that gov't does not create jobs.

[Ziggy]

Well in my mind it does....that's enough right?

 

Ok this is how I would explain it from Mitts side. That Obama has made it harder (less profitable) for private business to hire more people and produce more goods/services to sell. By imposing various regulations on banks, energy companies, etc.

 

He would help create jobs in the private sector by reducing the governments red tape in some industries. Basically make it more profitable to hire and produce and easier to expand business.

 

Romney would say he created jobs, but really only created the environment for growth, rather than literally telling people to create jobs. In effect he created the jobs with his policies that helped foster growth.

[knapplc]

I get that, Ziggy, the whole "create the environment" thing, but what I don't get is what Obama has done to poison the pool. Which regulations has he imposed that have killed jobs? How does he make it harder to hire more people? It can't simply be Obamacare, because here's the kicker about that - it's not going away whether Obama is reelected or Romney gets the gig.

 

Romney has said over and over that he'll repeal Obamacare. Just like Obama said he'd close Guantanamo the instant he took office. Gitmo is still there, and five years from now, Obamacare will still be there, too. We'll have riots in the streets if they repeal Obamacare without some kind of replacement and some really good explanations on how it's better.

[strigori]

Well in my mind it does....that's enough right?

 

Ok this is how I would explain it from Mitts side. That Obama has made it harder (less profitable) for private business to hire more people and produce more goods/services to sell. By imposing various regulations on banks, energy companies, etc.

 

He would help create jobs in the private sector by reducing the governments red tape in some industries. Basically make it more profitable to hire and produce and easier to expand business.

 

Romney would say he created jobs, but really only created the environment for growth, rather than literally telling people to create jobs. In effect he created the jobs with his policies that helped foster growth.

There are good reasons for most of the regulations. Regulations really only get passed in reaction to problems in an industry. The banking regulations are in response to the greedy scammers damned near crashing the world economy. Making money for a few companies does not supersede the health and stability of the planetary economy,

 

Companies are sitting on piles of capital right now, and are not hiring. Companies do not hire and produce because they are making more money or paying less taxes. They only hire and produce when there is an increased demand for their goods and services. They only ones who benefit from Romney's plans are the execs and stockholders. That does nothing to actually create jobs or lower unemployment.

 

The one way the gov can create jobs is to fund infrastructure projects like rebuilding roads and bridges.

[Ziggy]

I don't think Obama has really poisoned the pool as much as the perception in some peoples minds he has. The mind is a bad thing when it effects the economy. Obamacare isn't the plan I would have choose, but it is the law, and people will deal with it one way or another and so will I.

 

I guess a big point of contention with the Obama admin, was the coal/energy regulations given the economic situation. I care about the environment, but I think a more sloped regulation over time would have been better for our economy and innovation of technology. I wish they would cut red tape for Nuclear, natural gas, and gas refineries to reduce the energy costs on Americans. I like the green energy initiatives for our economy, but would probably implement them differently than Obama did. I guess biggest thing he could have done, was reduce the business loopholes and write offs, and lower the effective tax rate on companies that bring in less than 10 million income. Thus increasing revenue from large companies, and lowering operational cost for small companies.

[Ziggy]

Well in my mind it does....that's enough right?

 

Ok this is how I would explain it from Mitts side. That Obama has made it harder (less profitable) for private business to hire more people and produce more goods/services to sell. By imposing various regulations on banks, energy companies, etc.

 

He would help create jobs in the private sector by reducing the governments red tape in some industries. Basically make it more profitable to hire and produce and easier to expand business.

 

Romney would say he created jobs, but really only created the environment for growth, rather than literally telling people to create jobs. In effect he created the jobs with his policies that helped foster growth.

There are good reasons for most of the regulations. Regulations really only get passed in reaction to problems in an industry. The banking regulations are in response to the greedy scammers damned near crashing the world economy. Making money for a few companies does not supersede the health and stability of the planetary economy,

 

Companies are sitting on piles of capital right now, and are not hiring. Companies do not hire and produce because they are making more money or paying less taxes. They only hire and produce when there is an increased demand for their goods and services. They only ones who benefit from Romney's plans are the execs and stockholders. That does nothing to actually create jobs or lower unemployment.

 

The one way the gov can create jobs is to fund infrastructure projects like rebuilding roads and bridges.

 

Creating roads and bridges are stop gaps, not real jobs. The construction companies who work those jobs already have those employees, and if not the employee is at best a seasonal hire. Hardly the jobs we want to create. But they do have ripples that help feed the rest of the economy. Its a jump start, just not big enough to keep the engine running full throttle.

[knapplc]

I don't think Obama has really poisoned the pool as much as the perception in some peoples minds he has. The mind is a bad thing when it effects the economy. Obamacare isn't the plan I would have choose, but it is the law, and people will deal with it one way or another and so will I.

 

I guess a big point of contention with the Obama admin, was the coal/energy regulations given the economic situation. I care about the environment, but I think a more sloped regulation over time would have been better for our economy and innovation of technology. I wish they would cut red tape for Nuclear, natural gas, and gas refineries to reduce the energy costs on Americans. I like the green energy initiatives for our economy, but would probably implement them differently than Obama did. I guess biggest thing he could have done, was reduce the business loopholes and write offs, and lower the effective tax rate on companies that bring in less than 10 million income. Thus increasing revenue from large companies, and lowering operational cost for small companies.

 

I think you're right about the bold, but the problem is, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obama is bad, therefore jobs will be bad, therefore the economy will be bad, so we need to stop hiring, sit on our piles of cash, and wait it out. Well, it's not shocking when they're not hiring that unemployment stays high. It's not shocking when companies sit on stockpiles of liquid cash that the economy is sluggish. Obama gets blamed, but he's done nothing to earn this economy - in fact, he's done what he can to keep it going, despite the behavior of business and despite the fact that Mitch McConnell and his Republican cronies publicly state their main goal is to make Obama a one-term president.

 

Those are some tremendous hurdles to overcome, and the bizarre thing is, Obama has actually overcome some of them.

[huskerXman]

I don't think Obama has really poisoned the pool as much as the perception in some peoples minds he has. The mind is a bad thing when it effects the economy. Obamacare isn't the plan I would have choose, but it is the law, and people will deal with it one way or another and so will I.

 

I guess a big point of contention with the Obama admin, was the coal/energy regulations given the economic situation. I care about the environment, but I think a more sloped regulation over time would have been better for our economy and innovation of technology. I wish they would cut red tape for Nuclear, natural gas, and gas refineries to reduce the energy costs on Americans. I like the green energy initiatives for our economy, but would probably implement them differently than Obama did. I guess biggest thing he could have done, was reduce the business loopholes and write offs, and lower the effective tax rate on companies that bring in less than 10 million income. Thus increasing revenue from large companies, and lowering operational cost for small companies.

 

You have no clue just how bad regulations have pretty much stopped Nuke plants from being built. Nuke plats have been in my family for years.

There are a large number of plants that are not getting built because of regulations.. that isn't just on BO though.

[Ziggy]

He has done some good things. But I think he could have reserves some of the perception with making some across the isle decisions. I know the minority party is always going to try to resist everything the majority party does. I don't really wanna argue that. But I think he could have done a few of the things I mentioned that would have appeased the 'pubs and some big business he isn't after them. And while I don't think he actually is against them, the climate in DC with the Occupy Wall street crap I think made many companies worried about what policies he might enact next.

 

PS: I hesitate to include Occupy wall street, but think it plays into companies minds and perceptions.

[sd'sker]

Well in my mind it does....that's enough right?

 

Ok this is how I would explain it from Mitts side. That Obama has made it harder (less profitable) for private business to hire more people and produce more goods/services to sell. By imposing various regulations on banks, energy companies, etc.

 

He would help create jobs in the private sector by reducing the governments red tape in some industries. Basically make it more profitable to hire and produce and easier to expand business.

 

Romney would say he created jobs, but really only created the environment for growth, rather than literally telling people to create jobs. In effect he created the jobs with his policies that helped foster growth.

sounds like semantics. that is precisely what obama is talking about when he says he created jobs. he is talking about the unemployment rate and the private sector, as well as the public.

[Ziggy]

I don't think Obama has really poisoned the pool as much as the perception in some peoples minds he has. The mind is a bad thing when it effects the economy. Obamacare isn't the plan I would have choose, but it is the law, and people will deal with it one way or another and so will I.

 

I guess a big point of contention with the Obama admin, was the coal/energy regulations given the economic situation. I care about the environment, but I think a more sloped regulation over time would have been better for our economy and innovation of technology. I wish they would cut red tape for Nuclear, natural gas, and gas refineries to reduce the energy costs on Americans. I like the green energy initiatives for our economy, but would probably implement them differently than Obama did. I guess biggest thing he could have done, was reduce the business loopholes and write offs, and lower the effective tax rate on companies that bring in less than 10 million income. Thus increasing revenue from large companies, and lowering operational cost for small companies.

 

You have no clue just how bad regulations have pretty much stopped Nuke plants from being built. Nuke plats have been in my family for years.

There are a large number of plants that are not getting built because of regulations.. that isn't just on BO though.

 

I kinda feel like you think I disagree with you. I think a lot of the regulations on Nuclear are fear based, and with proper innovation could be a major part of our energy future. But sadly the 3 accidents at plants scared the literal crap out of people. And we can not ignore the environmental aspect of the spent rods either.

[sd'sker]

I don't think Obama has really poisoned the pool as much as the perception in some peoples minds he has. The mind is a bad thing when it effects the economy. Obamacare isn't the plan I would have choose, but it is the law, and people will deal with it one way or another and so will I.

 

I guess a big point of contention with the Obama admin, was the coal/energy regulations given the economic situation. I care about the environment, but I think a more sloped regulation over time would have been better for our economy and innovation of technology. I wish they would cut red tape for Nuclear, natural gas, and gas refineries to reduce the energy costs on Americans. I like the green energy initiatives for our economy, but would probably implement them differently than Obama did. I guess biggest thing he could have done, was reduce the business loopholes and write offs, and lower the effective tax rate on companies that bring in less than 10 million income. Thus increasing revenue from large companies, and lowering operational cost for small companies.

 

You have no clue just how bad regulations have pretty much stopped Nuke plants from being built. Nuke plats have been in my family for years.

There are a large number of plants that are not getting built because of regulations.. that isn't just on BO though.

 

I kinda feel like you think I disagree with you. I think a lot of the regulations on Nuclear are fear based, and with proper innovation could be a major part of our energy future. But sadly the 3 accidents at plants scared the literal crap out of people. And we can not ignore the environmental aspect of the spent rods either.

i am ambivalent towards nuclear. i think it is very promising in a lot of ways, but the major problem is what do you do with the waste?