OT - Why the September Jobs Report Is So Brutal
Too_Many_Tools
Administration.
In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?
TMT
Why the September Jobs Report Is So Brutal
By Liz Wolgemuth Liz Wolgemuth
Fri Oct 2, 12:55 pm ET
Employers in the United States continue to be more interested in
cutting their payrolls than in keeping their existing employees, let
alone adding new ones. Employers slashed another 263,000 jobs last
month, the Labor Department reported today. That brings nonfarm
employment down to the level of 2004, when there were about 7 million
fewer U.S. workers.
Workers are dropping out: The unemployment rate edged up only
slightly, to 9.8 percent, but the number of workers in the labor force
fell by 571,000, suggesting the unemployment rate could have been much
worse. The ranks of the marginally attached--workers who have dropped
out of the workforce because they believe they won't find jobs or
because they have other responsibilities, such as school--have grown
by 615,000 over the year.
There are not enough jobs: A bill that would provide another 13 weeks
of federally funded unemployment benefits to hard-hit states sailed
through the House last week but may be complicated by some senators'
efforts to get benefit extensions for all states. In some states,
eligible workers have already received as many as 79 weeks of
benefits. Historically, spells of unemployment that lasted a year or
more were very rare, says Harvard economist Lawrence Katz, a Harvard
economist. These trends are the sorts that haven't been seen since the
Great Depression.
Indeed, the number of workers who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or
more--called "long-term unemployed"--rose by 450,000, to 5.4 million.
Last month, 36 percent of the unemployed had been out of work for at
least six months. The unemployed face a market in which job seekers
outnumber job openings by a ratio of 6 to 1.
Governments are now feeling the heat: While most other industries
slashed jobs throughout the recession, the government sector held up
pretty well, helping cushion capital cities from the roughest economic
patches. Last month, however, strains on local governments started to
show. Government employment fell by 53,000, with the largest
drop--24,000 jobs--in the noneducation component of local governments.
Progress has slowed: September job losses were much worse than most
economists expected--the median estimate was a loss of 175,000. The
government also revised the prior data to show 201,000 jobs were lost
in August, rather than the 216,000 originally reported, meaning the
trend of narrowing job losses really shifted last month. "Today's
report suggests that the progress toward a recovery in labor market
conditions has stalled," Ted Weiseman and David Greenlaw, economists
at Morgan Stanley, said in a morning note. "We continue to expect to
see some eventual follow through on the hiring side, given the recent
improvement in production and demand, but the September data reinforce
the fact that some important headwinds remain."
Hours fell back down: Along with payroll cuts, many employers have
slashed their workers' hours to help lower expenses, and there are now
9.2 million "involuntary" part-time workers (those who would prefer
full-time work). The average workweek edged up in August, but
September erased the gain, and the workweek is again at a record low
33.0 hours.
Construction and manufacturing are still hurting: Since the start of
the recession, 1.5 million jobs have been erased in the construction
industry. Employers in construction slashed 64,000 jobs last month,
which, at least, was fewer than they were cutting late last year and
earlier this year. The pain was greatest in nonresidential components,
where 39,000 jobs were cut. Manufacturing lost 51,000 jobs. That's
also fewer than were being cut earlier in the recession, but
manufacturing payrolls have shrunk by 2.1 million since the start of
the downturn.
The future is unclear: One of the most difficult things to understand
about September's jobs report is how far the job market reality was
from the government's stimulus forecast. The White House estimated
that with the stimulus, the unemployment rate would peak at 8 percent.
Without a clear plan to stimulate future job growth, it's unclear how
long it will take for the 15.1 million unemployed to gain re-
employment in any significant volume. Employers tend to shy away from
the risk of new hires until they are confident of the state of the
economy. Even for the long-term unemployed, "when the economy is
chugging along, firms are willing to take a chance" on hiring and
training, says Katz.
Still, the market is improving, as job losses are much less than they
were last winter. "What is still very much open to question is how
fast the move will be to stabilization of payrolls and eventually to
job growth," says Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR. "We
continue to believe that the process will be a slow one and that
households will be contending with weak income growth and balance
sheet issues for some time."
Buerste
"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:337e30cc-61d1-4467...@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
> Administration.
>
> In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?
>
> TMT
>
As a small business owner, I see the potential disaster that liberal health
care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and other liberal
policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. Why should I risk capital or
hire people? You liberals just don't get it, "cut the goose open and get
ALL the gold!"
Eregon
> In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
> Administration.
Here's a tougher one - accomplishing anything beneficial to the citizens of
the United States of America.
Another tougher one - earning even the slightest scintilla of credibility
now that 0'Bammy has backed away from every campaign promise that helped to
get him elected.
>
> In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?
The jobs will come from the very place that 0'Bammy is working desperately
to alienate - small, non-union, businesses - in his efforts to pay corrupt
Unions back for their support.
Social[ist] programs attack small businesses - where the jobs are - in
their attempts to placate Unions whose members have been rendered
unemployable by the demands of their "leadership".
Face it, booby, Socialism and Unionism are dead ducks that, in their
passage, have destroyed the hopes and dreams that they claimed to foster.
--
I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules.
John R. Carroll
That's one way of looking at things Tom.
The other is that the public interest and yours aren't the same.
IOW, who would really care much about Ohio Brush?
You and the Wright Brothers, as a class, can share the same grave without
the slightest damage to the US economy going forward.
In fact, it can easily be argued that efforts to keep you alive are actually
counterproductive and a real drag on America's future.
Well Done.
--
John R. Carroll
Buerste
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
news:yMCdnVlGfrOvF1vX...@giganews.com...
Democrats like to punish these people with absurd taxes and regulations.
NONE of us (successful small businesses like me) are going to risk anything
in uncertain times unless there is a very good chance of reward for that
risk and not have the Democrats in temporary power steal it all to buy
votes.
So, you can think all small businesses can go away...it just shows how
stupidly you and the rest of the libtards think. Oh that's right, you think
you will STILL get a cheese-check no matter what. Laugh...laugh...laugh!
Ignoramus16474
work less and businesses will hire less.
This view is, at best, simplistic, and at worst, less than sincere.
I would like to point out that it is much more complicated than that
and effects of taxation, outside of extremes like 100% taxes, are not
nearly as obvious.
Here's an example.
Let's say that a worker earns 100 dollars per hour. Let's say that
presently he is taxed at 30%, so his actual cash income is $70 per
hour.
This worker certain needs, such as a mortgage, a car loan, a kept
mistress on the side, and a hobby workshop.
Suddenly the taxes increase and instead of 30%, the government takes
40%, so the worker's cash income falls from 70 dollars an hour to 60
dollars an hour.
Would this worker choose to work more hours, to maintain his
previous lifestyle, or less hours, due to being discouraged?
The answer is not at all a given and depends on the worker's utility
curve, specifically the utility of free time and the marginal utility
of the extra goods that he can no longer afford due to higher taxes,
as well as how elastic his expenses are. This hypothetical worker
probably cannot pay less mortgage, but perhaps he can reduce the
presents to the mistress.
As everyone's financial and leisure priorities are different, the
result of higher taxes on the total hours worked, likely would involve
a mix of work reductions and work increases.
This obvious consideration was pointed out to me at the University of
Chicago business school, approximately 12 years ago.
i
F. George McDuffee
wrote:
===========
Indeed they do, but the problem appears to be that the old "rules
of thumb" no longer apply.
While getting hard data is like pulling teeth out of an emu, it
does indeed appear that the Obama health care reform [as far as
it can be determined what this means from minute to minute] is
likely to be a disaster. On the other hand the health care status
quo [provided through/by the employer] is projected as equally
likely to be a debacle.
Many of the hospitals in the major urban areas are already
showing signs of collapse as their emergency rooms are over-run
with non-emergency routine medical cases to the point where
emergency care is compromised, and from a financial perspective
are unable to collect *ANY* compensation for services, i.e. they
can't get blood out of a turnip, but are required by law to
provide medical care.
While the name [free market capitalism] of the game has remained
the same for over 200 years, the implicit rules of the game, and
the society/culture in which the game is embedded, have mutated
beyond recognition, with Darwinian/Spencerian capitalism for the
many [individuals and small businesses] and cradle to grave
socialism for the chosen few [too big to fail corporations].
This is not about you, but rather is a basic sociatal/cultural
paradigm shift, with health care as the most obvious current
symptom, to a far more corporate/fascist governmental mindset,
with only minimal involvement of the obsolete and archaic
liberal/conservative blocs, that are still fighting the cold war
and the great depression, and see every problem/opportunity in
those terms, thus tilting at windmills ala Don Quixote de la
Mancha.
We are living in interesting times...
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
Buerste
"Ignoramus16474" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.16474.invalid> wrote in message
news:3Y6dndUDL8Q6IlvX...@giganews.com...
From a different point of view, consider the effect of taxing the business
that provides that $100/hr job. Can the business expend capital (risk) to
expand and hire more $100 workers? Or, buy new equipment built by companies
that hire other $100/hr workers? With more capital going into the
bottomless pit of government, there is less capital available to hire people
and buy equipment. Less money in the whole system means less presents for
mistresses, less demand for all sorts of goods which leads to less
production and less jobs.
In my little world, my accounts are in great shape, I'm lucky enough to be
almost recession proof. BUT, I'm not risking ANYTHING! The standing order
is not to buy anything we don't absolutely have to have and watch every
penny. No landscaping projects, no new lunchroom furniture, no new
computers, no luxuries!
These are uncertain times, the health care fiasco, the cap-n-tax scam, and
the massive spending of this administration frighten the hell out of
me...why should I risk? I will just hunker down and wait for the end of
this administration. And, if I don't risk, the landscapers, computer
makers, furniture makers and luxury makers LAY PEOPLE OFF!!! It's not just
me, it's most small business owners in general feel the same way. No mater
what the liberals say, it won't change this. PLEASE, TELL ME YOU GET IT!
F. George McDuffee
>>care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and other liberal
>>policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. Why should I risk capital or
>>hire people? You liberals just don't get it, "cut the goose open and get
>>ALL the gold!"
=======
following WSJ article of interest.
http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2009/09/29/what-really-kills-great-companies-inertia/
Be sure and scan the comments.
Too_Many_Tools
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The subject is "How and where will the new jobs come from?"
I take it that you are saying that you will not create any new jobs.
Thanks for playing.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:
The subject is "How and where will the new jobs come from?"
I take it your answer indicates you do not know.
Thanks for playing.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in messagenews:yMCdnVlGfrOvF1vX...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > Buerste wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
So says a winger who wishes ill for the United States of America.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "Ignoramus16474" <ignoramus16...@NOSPAM.16474.invalid> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
So if you have nothing to risk, why are you bitching like Sarah Palin
in heat?
TMT
CalifBill
Thanks for playing.
TMT
And what real jobs will a union create? Excluding Union Organizer and Union
Goon.
Too_Many_Tools
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
And this matters because?
The better paying jobs have been union jobs.
And the United States needs better paying jobs.
TMT
Buerste
<snip>
So if you have nothing to risk, why are you bitching like Sarah Palin
in heat?
TMT
*****************************
You can't read? I said I WON'T risk capital while Democrats have power.
DAMN are you stupid!
Buerste
TMT
************************************
How many paychecks do you sign per week? Tax checks? Material checks?
Utility checks? Insurance checks? Oh, that's right...the only check that
you handle is your monthly cheese-check...that I pay for...then you buy
booze and drugs with it. Typical libtard!
Buerste
Thanks for playing.
TMT
***********************************
I've created two jobs in the last two months, but only because I had to, I
have plenty of excess capacity that could be making products but the market
won't support it. As soon as the Democrats loose power in 2010 the markets
will improve.
Eregon
> The subject is "How and where will the new jobs come from?"
>
> I take it your answer indicates you do not know.
Virtually all of the jobs will originate in small, privately-owned, non-
union businesses.
The rest of the jobs will be as staffers for politicians that displace the
current incumbents. <grin>
Union Leaders may well be advised to start up a new Union - one dedicated
to finding jobs for former Union Leaders...
dca...@krl.org
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Excellent post.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
You are the one that asked where will the new jobs come from. So it
is obvious that you do not know.
Tom's answer is that they will not come as a result of the things the
Democrats are doing. Most new jobs will come from small businesses.
And small businesses will not create new jobs unless they believe that
the return is worth the risk. So no new jobs until the there is a
change in the governments direction.
There is currently a lot of excess capacity. So no new jobs for a
while.
That is likely to have an effect on the midterm elections.
Unfortunately the Democrats that are likely to lose their seats are
the moderate Democrats.
So we are likely to have a Congress that accomplishes very little for
the next four or six years.
So I guess the answer to where the new jobs will come from is that
they will come from companies that are not in the US.
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:c5ec7a46-b5c6-4ab7...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>Excellent post.
> Dan
Except that it makes no sense. d8-)
I should let Iggy explain this, because I'm sure he can do it better, but...
Tom says his accounts are in good shape now, with his current investment and
his "$100/hr. workers." <g> But the high cost of workers prevents him from
making further investments.
This is nonsense. If he's making a profit now, with his $100/hr. workers,
then the marginal return on any further investment will be at the same rate,
until he's saturated his market. In other words, if it's working for him now
and if he has market potential left to grow, he'll continue to get the same
return on further investments, even with the same $100/hr. workers and the
same marginal capital cost. He would make lots more money if he invested at
the current rates of capital costs and labor rates.
With all due respect to Tom, the illogic in his argument is rampant in the
world of small business.
Now, there are other issues that tell us the more likely reasons Tom doesn't
want to invest further. First, he's probably figuring his present capital
investment in a way that includes a lot of fully depreciated, older
machinery, carried on his books at scrap value, so his ROI, on paper, looks
like it's much higher than his marginal ROI would look if it was based on
current investment -- which is closer to the way that accounting works in
*big* business. This is common in small manufacturing operations. If you're
running a certain percentage of old junk that still works, the value of your
capital equipment looks pretty low. Your marginal return on labor may
suck -- think about JB running old junk in his garage <g> -- but it may look
like a really good ROI. That is, if you ignore the labor-cost component of
your output, and make the assumption that it wouldn't be reduced much by
investing in newer equipment. Sometimes, that's true. But it's usually not,
despite what a lot of smaller shop owners think. The way productivity has
been increasing through the use of new technology in recent decades, the
equations have been unequivocal for most large manufacturers: invest in
newer machinery, and make more money. The labor savings and quality
improvements more than make up for the capital costs. Each small
manufacturer tends to have unique conditions that can make these equations
work the same way for them, or sometimes not. But in the aggregate, they do.
The irony here is that the higher labor rates go, the MORE this equation
works in favor of making more investment. That's the illogic behind the way
Tom has described it. The world's most successful manufacturers, like
Toyota, etc., are the ones that keep making the greatest investments in
equipment and have the lowest average equipment ages. And the higher labor
costs go, the more the equations work in favor of making greater
investments.
Tom has listed a bunch of other things that make him wary, like
cap-and-trade, etc., and those are considerations that have to go into his
investment decisions. But the basic thing he described, which is that high
labor costs discourage his investment, are exactly backwards from reality.
I'm not arguing that his circumstances dictate higher investment, or not.
There are too many variables, most of which only he knows. But it's worth it
to clear up this misconception about the effects of increasing labor costs.
That's illogical risk-aversion and it's financially wrong, as the most
successful manufacturers in the world will tell you. And they put their
investment money where their mouths are.
--
Ed Huntress
Larry Jaques
<bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
So why continue your discourse with the fool bot, Tawm? <sigh>
--
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw
dca...@krl.org
>
> Except that it makes no sense. d8-)
>
> I should let Iggy explain this, because I'm sure he can do it better, but...
>
> Tom says his accounts are in good shape now, with his current investment and
> his "$100/hr. workers." <g> But the high cost of workers prevents him from
> making further investments.
>
> This is nonsense. If he's making a profit now, with his $100/hr. workers,
> then the marginal return on any further investment will be at the same rate,
> until he's saturated his market. In other words, if it's working for him now
> and if he has market potential left to grow, he'll continue to get the same
> return on further investments, even with the same $100/hr. workers and the
> same marginal capital cost. He would make lots more money if he invested at
> the current rates of capital costs and labor rates.
Please explain how his marginal rate of return will stay constant as
he expands until he has saturated the market. At which point I gather
from what you say, that his marginal rate of return will magically go
to zero.
And what if he needs to invest in fixed assets to expand, and then the
market shrinks and he does not sell more. Then he has more money
invested and no additional money coming in.
>
> With all due respect to Tom, the illogic in his argument is rampant in the
> world of small business.
>
> Now, there are other issues that tell us the more likely reasons Tom doesn't
> want to invest further. First, he's probably figuring his present capital
> investment in a way that includes a lot of fully depreciated, older
> machinery, carried on his books at scrap value, so his ROI, on paper, looks
> like it's much higher than his marginal ROI would look if it was based on
> current investment -- which is closer to the way that accounting works in
> *big* business. This is common in small manufacturing operations. If you're
> running a certain percentage of old junk that still works, the value of your
> capital equipment looks pretty low. Your marginal return on labor may
> suck -- think about JB running old junk in his garage <g> -- but it may look
> like a really good ROI. That is, if you ignore the labor-cost component of
> your output, and make the assumption that it wouldn't be reduced much by
> investing in newer equipment. Sometimes, that's true. But it's usually not,
> despite what a lot of smaller shop owners think. The way productivity has
> been increasing through the use of new technology in recent decades, the
> equations have been unequivocal for most large manufacturers: invest in
> newer machinery, and make more money. The labor savings and quality
> improvements more than make up for the capital costs. Each small
> manufacturer tends to have unique conditions that can make these equations
> work the same way for them, or sometimes not. But in the aggregate, they do.
From what I have been reading of Toms posts, he has been investing in
building new equipment and has scrapped all the older equipment.
>
> The irony here is that the higher labor rates go, the MORE this equation
> works in favor of making more investment. That's the illogic behind the way
> Tom has described it. The world's most successful manufacturers, like
> Toyota, etc., are the ones that keep making the greatest investments in
> equipment and have the lowest average equipment ages. And the higher labor
> costs go, the more the equations work in favor of making greater
> investments.
If the labor costs only increase for Tom and not for his overseas
competitors, then your argument loses much of its logic.
From what I have read of Toms posts he is one of the world most
successful manufacturers of brushes and has been able to compete with
the Chinese manufacturers because he has invested in new equipment.
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:67a12f8a-33e8-4ce8...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 3:38 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Except that it makes no sense. d8-)
>
> I should let Iggy explain this, because I'm sure he can do it better,
> but...
>
> Tom says his accounts are in good shape now, with his current investment
> and
> his "$100/hr. workers." <g> But the high cost of workers prevents him from
> making further investments.
>
> This is nonsense. If he's making a profit now, with his $100/hr. workers,
> then the marginal return on any further investment will be at the same
> rate,
> until he's saturated his market. In other words, if it's working for him
> now
> and if he has market potential left to grow, he'll continue to get the
> same
> return on further investments, even with the same $100/hr. workers and the
> same marginal capital cost. He would make lots more money if he invested
> at
> the current rates of capital costs and labor rates.
>Please explain how his marginal rate of return will stay constant as
>he expands until he has saturated the market.
As long as the market is there, and unless he's so large that he drives
market prices down by increasing his volume, his marginal rate of return
will stay the same. If he *is* that large, he'll limit his expansion anyway,
to the equilibrium at which his marginal rate of return is just acceptable
to him.
>At which point I gather
>from what you say, that his marginal rate of return will magically go
>to zero.
No, it drops to what the replacement market will bear. That's basic market
economics, Dan.
>And what if he needs to invest in fixed assets to expand, and then the
>market shrinks and he does not sell more. Then he has more money
>invested and no additional money coming in.
That's true at any time, and, if he's making a profit now, with $100/hr.
labor, then his labor costs will not influence the outcome.
You'd have to ask him what's on his books. The point is that small
businesses tend to hold on to a lot of fully-depreciated assets, which has
the effect of increasing their marginal cost of new investments relative to
the revenue they're now getting from a given total amount of capital assets.
In other words, the effect of using a lot of depreciated assets is to make
your ROI look a lot higher than it is, if you calculated the true value of
the assets relative to your income. That's true no matter what your labor
costs may be. If you reduce your labor cost you can increase your revenue,
but you soon run up against the same brick wall, in which the marginal
return on a new investment is less than you'll accept. So reducing what you
pay your workers will put more money in your pocket for the short term, but
you'll reach a new equilibrium in which you can't grow under your present
financial conditions. And, in the aggregate, and over time, reducing what
labor is paid just deflates the size of your market. If you're playing the
game that way, your only solution is to keep reducing what you pay your
workers. It's a dead-man's spiral.
If Tom truly is running entirely on new equipment, then his margins on
*more* new equipment will be the same as they are right now -- until and
unless he saturates the market, or drives prices down by largely saturating
it.
Small businesses never look at the aggregate. <g> Henry Ford had to look at
the aggregate. And the entire economy is the aggregate.
>
> The irony here is that the higher labor rates go, the MORE this equation
> works in favor of making more investment. That's the illogic behind the
> way
> Tom has described it. The world's most successful manufacturers, like
> Toyota, etc., are the ones that keep making the greatest investments in
> equipment and have the lowest average equipment ages. And the higher labor
> costs go, the more the equations work in favor of making greater
> investments.
>If the labor costs only increase for Tom and not for his overseas
>competitors, then your argument loses much of its logic.
It makes it even MORE economically attractive for Tom to invest in new, more
productive equipment, so he can compete. Reducing wages then moves his
equilibrium point up for a while, and then it just reduces aggregate demand.
Individually, Tom won't notice it. But if other small businessmen do the
same thing, we'll all notice it.
>From what I have read of Toms posts he is one of the world most
>successful manufacturers of brushes and has been able to compete with
>the Chinese manufacturers because he has invested in new equipment.
There ya' go. It was the investment that did it. I don't think he reduced
wages.
Buerste
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4ac8b32f$0$5002$607e...@cv.net...
bank that I may need for more bullshit regulations like having to pay
"license fees" on screwdrivers, increased insurance costs on gravel parking
lots, triple electrical and gas costs due to cap-n-tax, boosts in healthcare
costs, increased transportation costs, increased material costs, etc. And,
I'm certainly not going to borrow any money for projects.
My equipment isn't old and runs as fast or faster than the latest,
considering most is not carried on the books or capitalized because it's
shop-made. I don't buy equipment, I usually make it. And you're WAY off
about my wage considerations. the $100/hr figure was a nominal that Iggy
used. I pay considerably more than minimum and more than industry standard.
So, your whole post if flawed. My post said nothing about my labor costs
and your diatribe was based on a wrong assumption. The Democrats have
created stagnant or diminishing markets, they have created fear in the
markets causing people like me, the job creators, NOT to hire people unless
we have to, and keep our capital tight and not borrow. Most successful
manufacturers are doing the EXACT SAME THING!!!
BUT I LIKE THE WAY YOU TAKE FACTS AND TWIST THEM INTO UNRECOGNIZABLE GOO!
You really are a liberal! You have no clue as to how the world works except
through your heavily colored glasses! Or did you get implants in case your
glasses fell off and you might get a glimpse or another reality?
Buerste
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:jthhc5p7dnndagjqq...@4ax.com...
Bored.
wmbjk...@citlink.net
>BUT I LIKE THE WAY YOU TAKE FACTS AND TWIST THEM INTO UNRECOGNIZABLE GOO!
Physician, heal thyself!
>You really are a liberal! You have no clue as to how the world works except
>through your heavily colored glasses! Or did you get implants in case your
>glasses fell off and you might get a glimpse or another reality?
What did I just say? <sigh>
Wayne
Ed Huntress
"Buerste" <bue...@att.net> wrote in message
news:nI5ym.38230$bP1....@newsfe24.iad...
I read what you said, Tom. And *I* said that you have a lot of other
variables to consider, but that your problem is not wages.
>
> My equipment isn't old and runs as fast or faster than the latest,
> considering most is not carried on the books or capitalized because it's
> shop-made.
You don't have your shop-made equipment on your books?? How do you report
your assets when you go for a loan? Don't you have business property taxes
in Ohio? Tom, Tom...have you undervalued your assets? <g>
> I don't buy equipment, I usually make it. And you're WAY off about my
> wage considerations. the $100/hr figure was a nominal that Iggy used.
It was a joke, which I just repeated from what you said. d8-)
> I pay considerably more than minimum and more than industry standard. So,
> your whole post if flawed.
Not really. My point is that the wages you pay, if they're high or if they
increase, only INCREASE the importance of making more investments. That is,
if your investments now are paying off, and if your future investments can
be expected to.
> My post said nothing about my labor costs and your diatribe was based on
> a wrong assumption.
Nonsense. It wouldn't matter if you paid $8/hour. The point is, labor costs
are not the issue.
> The Democrats have created stagnant or diminishing markets, they have
> created fear in the markets causing people like me, the job creators, NOT
> to hire people unless we have to, and keep our capital tight and not
> borrow. Most successful manufacturers are doing the EXACT SAME THING!!!
Most successful manufacturers have halted hiring because their markets have
shrunk or stagnated. If demand picks up, watch how quickly they invest and
hire. That's what they're saying themselves.
>
> BUT I LIKE THE WAY YOU TAKE FACTS AND TWIST THEM INTO UNRECOGNIZABLE GOO!
Thank you, but I don't take credit for that. I just waded into the goo you
created here. d8-)
> You really are a liberal! You have no clue as to how the world works
> except through your heavily colored glasses! Or did you get implants in
> case your glasses fell off and you might get a glimpse or another reality?
I've spend hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of hours listening to
manufacturers, and reporting what they say, for around 35 years. I know the
stories. No two of you say exactly the same things, or have the same
complaints, when I talk to them one-on-one -- it depends mostly on your
individual circumstances. However, you'd never know that to listen at a
trade association meeting. They just gather up all of the complaints, even
those that flatly contradict each other, and boil them into a sort of
pot-luck stew. <g>
One of the most interesting experiences I've ever had with a trade
association was when I was asked to give a talk on China trade to the New
Jersey Tooling & Machining Association. They were expecting me to bash China
and they wanted blood. But I showed them the charts and figures, and I
showed them WHY they were barking up the wrong tree.
I've never heard such silence from 175 people sitting in the same room...
--
Ed Huntress
John R. Carroll
Dumb ass.
Universal, public option health care would mean no more workman's comp
premiums.
--
John R. Carroll
Too_Many_Tools
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
So if you have nothing to risk, why are you bitching like Sarah Palin
in heat?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ooooooo...TWO WHOLE JOBS!
Sounds like a recession proof business to me.
No wonder you are bitching like Sarah Palin in heat.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "CalifBill" <bmckees...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:
You mean like all of those unemployed Bush/Cheney staffers?
Hmmm...isn't Sarah Palin unemployed?
I wonder if she is on public welfare along with her unemployed
husband.
Looks like maybe we should get back on subject and discuss where the
new good paying jobs will come from.
TMT
dca...@krl.org
> It makes it even MORE economically attractive for Tom to invest in new, more
> productive equipment, so he can compete. Reducing wages then moves his
> equilibrium point up for a while, and then it just reduces aggregate demand.
> Individually, Tom won't notice it. But if other small businessmen do the
> same thing, we'll all notice it.
>
>
But investing on more productive equipment means that Tom can employ
fewer workers. So this is not where the jobs are going to come from.
Dan
> > --
> > Ed Huntress
Buerste
> You don't have your shop-made equipment on your books?? How do you report
> your assets when you go for a loan? Don't you have business property taxes
> in Ohio? Tom, Tom...have you undervalued your assets? <g>
>
My accountant states that I can't take $2k in steel and $2k in parts and $5k
in labor and capitalize it as a $50k machine...which is what it would cost
to buy it or have it built. We write it off as shop expense, perfectly
legal. As far as assets for loans, the building and property, paid for,
more than cover any loans we would want.
dca...@krl.org
>
> Ooooooo...TWO WHOLE JOBS!
>
> Sounds like a recession proof business to me.
>
> No wonder you are bitching like Sarah Palin in heat.
>
> TMT
So how many jobs did you create? Numbers please.
Dan
Buerste
"John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
It's not a health care bill itself that destabilizes, it's the fact that
Democrat politicians are involved that is destabilizing...nobody trusts them
to do anything other than what's good for Democrat politicians.
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another winger bitching like Sarah Palin in heat.
Sounds like wingers are looking for corporate welfare.
Get off your butt and make your own opportunities.
TMT
Wes
The accountant where I used to work had the same thoughts on what the machines I made were
worth on the books.
To call it a 50K machine, you would have to set up another business unit, claim the
difference is profit less expenses and all that sort of thing getting you nowhere other
than putting a higher asset value on your machine and paying taxes on 'imaginary' income.
I have a feeling you have better things to do.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Too_Many_Tools
> "Buerste" <buer...@att.net> wrote in message
>
> news:nI5ym.38230$bP1....@newsfe24.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news:4ac8b32f$0$5002$607e...@cv.net...
>
> >> <dcas...@krl.org> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well said Ed.
And it is interesting that "someone" is underreporting his taxes.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> Buerste wrote:
> > "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> >news:yMCdnVlGfrOvF1vX...@giganews.com...
> >> Buerste wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
More productive equipment means you can shift your staff to grow your
business..and create more jobs.
TMT
dca...@krl.org
> Another winger bitching like Sarah Palin in heat.
>
> Sounds like wingers are looking for corporate welfare.
>
> Get off your butt and make your own opportunities.
>
> TMT
No bitching here. You wanted to know where the jobs were coming
from. And that is what I was answering.
I have already made my own opportunities and have no need to worry
about where the jobs are coming from. Don't need corporate welfare or
government welfare.
I may not be as rich as Sarah Palin, but I have enough that I am not
jealous of her money as you seem to be.
Dan
Too_Many_Tools
> "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message
Why would you want to capitalize it as a $50K machine when it isn't
one?
Unless you wanted to cheat on your taxes.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
More than TWO WHOLE JOBS.
ROTFLMAO
I guess it just goes to show that the more a winger bitches, the less
he is contributing to the bottom line.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in messagenews:qYadnVantcYSm1TX...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Buerste wrote:
> >> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> >>news:yMCdnVlGfrOvF1vX...@giganews.com...
> >>> Buerste wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
And history shows that the Republicans CANNOT BE TRUSTED.
But you are in a recession proof business so why do you care?
TMT
Ignoramus16938
>
> "Ignoramus16474" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.16474.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3Y6dndUDL8Q6IlvX...@giganews.com...
>> Some people seem to believe that with more taxes, people will tend to
>> work less and businesses will hire less.
>>
>> This view is, at best, simplistic, and at worst, less than sincere.
>>
>> I would like to point out that it is much more complicated than that
>> and effects of taxation, outside of extremes like 100% taxes, are not
>> nearly as obvious.
>>
>> Here's an example.
... example snipped...
>
> From a different point of view, consider the effect of taxing the business
> that provides that $100/hr job. Can the business expend capital (risk) to
> expand and hire more $100 workers? Or, buy new equipment built by companies
> that hire other $100/hr workers? With more capital going into the
> bottomless pit of government, there is less capital available to hire people
> and buy equipment. Less money in the whole system means less presents for
> mistresses, less demand for all sorts of goods which leads to less
> production and less jobs.
That's a good question and it took me a couple of days to think about
it.
The standard approach here is to say that any taxes on businesses that
are in a competitive industry, in the long run, are borne by their
customers, by way of paying a higher price for goods.
If we assume that a certain degree of business risk would demand a
certain amount of return on capital, the above makes sense.
> In my little world, my accounts are in great shape, I'm lucky enough
> to be almost recession proof. BUT, I'm not risking ANYTHING! The
> standing order is not to buy anything we don't absolutely have to
> have and watch every penny. No landscaping projects, no new
> lunchroom furniture, no new computers, no luxuries!
> These are uncertain times, the health care fiasco, the cap-n-tax
> scam, and the massive spending of this administration frighten the
> hell out of me...why should I risk? I will just hunker down and
> wait for the end of this administration. And, if I don't risk, the
> landscapers, computer makers, furniture makers and luxury makers LAY
> PEOPLE OFF!!! It's not just me, it's most small business owners in
> general feel the same way. No mater what the liberals say, it won't
> change this. PLEASE, TELL ME YOU GET IT!
I do get it. But I think that you are overstating effects on changes
in tax rates on your business. Also, and more specifically to the
issue of alternatives to higher taxes, the effects of inflation are
more deleterious in many respects, and create even more business
uncertainty, than higher taxes.
i
Buerste
TMT
********************************
I don't trust Democrats a whole lot more than I don't trust Republicans.
History proves ME right. And yes, I am blessed to be *almost* recession
proof.
Buerste
>> So how many jobs did you create? Numbers please.
>>
>> Dan
>More than TWO WHOLE JOBS.
>TNT
Nobody believes you, you're a lib, you lie. Prove the jobs you created.
(Cashing your cheese-check doesn't count as a job.)
Too_Many_Tools
But you do bitch....Google doesn't lie.
How about telling us where the new jobs will be coming from?
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
History shows that Bush gave us this recession.
If you were in a "recession proof" business you would be adding more
than TWO jobs.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
LOL...PROVE THE TWO JOBS THAT YOU SUPPOSELY CREATED.
Lying winger.
TMT
F. George McDuffee
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?
========
The jobs will come from where they have always come from for the
last 80 years -- war production. We have wars two going [Iraq
and Afghanistan] that can be rapidly expanded, overt Somalia
operations can be quickly restarted, and Iran promises to provide
not only land and air but also sea opportunities.
Not only will this give a big boost to the US
manufacturing/industrial sector, it will also divert much of the
surplus labor for males 18-26 through the reintroduced draft.
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
dca...@krl.org
>
> > So how many jobs did you create? Numbers please.
>
> > Dan
>
> More than TWO WHOLE JOBS.
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> I guess it just goes to show that the more a winger bitches, the less
> he is contributing to the bottom line.
>
> TMT
I still did not see any numbers.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
> But you do bitch....Google doesn't lie.
So you say, but offer no examples.
>
> How about telling us where the new jobs will be coming from?
>
> TMT
As I said there will not be any significant new jobs for a while. At
least that is my prediction.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
>
> More productive equipment means you can shift your staff to grow your
> business..and create more jobs.
>
> TMT
Or lacking an increase in sales, cut your staff and still produce as
much.
Dan
Ed Huntress
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:287863c2-158a-40af...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
First, if you're right about that, then Tom is perpetuating a fraud when he
ties his investment to hiring more workers. <g> But that's not right. If
he's adding to equipment he'll have to add workers. If he REPLACES old
equipment with new, he *may* be able to reduce the number of workers. But
that's not likely. It would take a lot of investment, and his ROI probably
wouldn't stand up, in comparison with simply *adding* some new capacity to
increase his output.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
news:il9ym.126263$Y83....@newsfe21.iad...
If $9,000 is all you invest in a machine, then, it doesn't sound like you're
inhibited in your investments by whatever it is you're complaining about.
I still don't get how you're claiming that costs are keeping you from
investing, but I don't think I'm going to learn much from this go-around.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
The latest Rasmussen poll shows an exact split: 44% trust Democrats more on
health care; 44% trust Republicans more.
You should get out more, Tom. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Too_Many_Tools
Nor do I.
You say TWO WHOLE JOBS.
Prove it winger.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
Do I have to teach you how to use Google now?
The subject is where will the new jobs come from.
If there will be no new jobs, then taxes will need to go up to make up
for loss of revenues.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
I thought you were in a recession proof business.
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "Buerste" <buer...@wowway.com> wrote in message
>
> news:il9ym.126263$Y83....@newsfe21.iad...
>
>
>
> > "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news:4ac8ed1b$0$31258$607e...@cv.net...
> >> You don't have your shop-made equipment on your books?? How do you report
> >> your assets when you go for a loan? Don't you have business property
> >> taxes in Ohio? Tom, Tom...have you undervalued your assets? <g>
>
> > My accountant states that I can't take $2k in steel and $2k in parts and
> > $5k in labor and capitalize it as a $50k machine...which is what it would
> > cost to buy it or have it built. We write it off as shop expense,
> > perfectly legal. As far as assets for loans, the building and property,
> > paid for, more than cover any loans we would want.
>
> If $9,000 is all you invest in a machine, then, it doesn't sound like you're
> inhibited in your investments by whatever it is you're complaining about.
>
> I still don't get how you're claiming that costs are keeping you from
> investing, but I don't think I'm going to learn much from this go-around.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
I agree...and I too am waiting to hear more.
TMT
Buerste
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:287863c2-158a-40af...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 4, 7:09 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> It makes it even MORE economically attractive for Tom to invest in new,
> more
> productive equipment, so he can compete. Reducing wages then moves his
> equilibrium point up for a while, and then it just reduces aggregate
> demand.
> Individually, Tom won't notice it. But if other small businessmen do the
> same thing, we'll all notice it.
>
>
But investing on more productive equipment means that Tom can employ
fewer workers. So this is not where the jobs are going to come from.
Dan
**********************************
I've hit the wall of diminishing returns, I really can't automate much more.
I've also hit physical speed limits. My improvements now are focusing on
material handling flow and logistics. Net year I will introduce an entire
new line of wheel brushes based on a new technology.
Buerste
TMT
**************************************
It still fluctuates but I'm not worried about staying in business, like too
many small businesses.
Buerste
Your imaginary model of my business is so far off the mark I don't even know
where to BEGIN to correct you.
A. I don't HAVE any old equipment, haven't you been reading my posts for
the past ten years?
B. I have drastically reduced the number of man-hours per product.
C. I don't buy equipment, I design and build it for the costs of material
and labor...no bank loans.
D. My equipment is beyond state of the art.
E. I have plenty of excess capacity in some areas and I run overtime in
other areas. It depends on the market, the Democrats have destroyed the
industrial market...guess where my excess capacity is? But I don't need it
and idle machines don't eat anything.
I get four or more good, legitimate offers for my company every year and
many more bullshit ones. I can sell and retire any time I want for more
than I can ever spend. I must have done some things right, so I trust my
OWN judgment and instincts a whole lot more than yours.
Why don't you come and visit?
Buerste
"Wes" <clu...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:5Z9ym.1367$mJ7...@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
>>> You don't have your shop-made equipment on your books?? How do you
>>> report
>>> your assets when you go for a loan? Don't you have business property
>>> taxes
>>> in Ohio? Tom, Tom...have you undervalued your assets? <g>
>>>
>>
>>My accountant states that I can't take $2k in steel and $2k in parts and
>>$5k
>>in labor and capitalize it as a $50k machine...which is what it would cost
>>to buy it or have it built. We write it off as shop expense, perfectly
>>legal. As far as assets for loans, the building and property, paid for,
>>more than cover any loans we would want.
>>
>
> machines I made were
> worth on the books.
>
> To call it a 50K machine, you would have to set up another business unit,
> claim the
> difference is profit less expenses and all that sort of thing getting you
> nowhere other
> than putting a higher asset value on your machine and paying taxes on
> 'imaginary' income.
>
> I have a feeling you have better things to do.
>
> Wes
Exactly!
Buerste
TMT
********************************
Don't try to understand, it's beyond you.
Buerste
It's PERCEIVED costs if the Democrats get their way and tax the shit out of
everything...and they certainly will if they have their way.
Buerste
<snip>
Well said Ed.
And it is interesting that "someone" is underreporting his taxes.
TMT
********************************************
I have NEVER cheated on taxes or anything else...unlike how many
high-ranking Democrats that have been caught just this year? If you ever
accuse me again I WILL hunt you down like a dog. Apologize NOW!
Buerste
"Ignoramus16938" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.16938.invalid> wrote in message
news:w7qdnUHlmb7XpFTX...@giganews.com...
I can't raise prices, I have year-long contract and I have to compete with
foreign competitors that don't have these taxes and other bureaucratic
expenses. It's true that other businesses can just pass these costs on, but
I can't.
Buerste
Well then, I'm in the 44%
Buerste
Lying winger.
TMT
*************************************
I don't have to, everybody here knows I don't lie...unlike you. You still
have no proof of your claim, NOBODY here trusts you...you lie.
Buerste
Nor do I.
Prove it winger.
TMT
************************************
You're welcome to come visit anytime you like. Many hear at RCM have
visited. But then I expect you to post a BUNCH of apologies.
Ed Huntress
How about the rest of your physical plant? Is your building depreciated?
I was talking about total ROI, Tom. Consider your total assets, and their
replacement cost. If you have old plant or equipment, you're like most small
manufacturing business in the US. If you don't, you're probably financed by
China. <g>
> B. I have drastically reduced the number of man-hours per product.
Good for you!
> C. I don't buy equipment, I design and build it for the costs of material
> and labor...no bank loans.
And at the costs to you, if your $9,000/machine example is accurate, your
cost to expand should be pretty reasonable. So what's all this talk about
your not being able to invest?
> D. My equipment is beyond state of the art.
> E. I have plenty of excess capacity in some areas and I run overtime in
> other areas. It depends on the market, the Democrats have destroyed the
> industrial market...guess where my excess capacity is? But I don't need
> it and idle machines don't eat anything.
How have the Democrats destroyed your industrial market?
>
> I get four or more good, legitimate offers for my company every year and
> many more bullshit ones. I can sell and retire any time I want for more
> than I can ever spend. I must have done some things right, so I trust my
> OWN judgment and instincts a whole lot more than yours.
Well, that's reasonable. What's NOT reasonable is the sort of generalized
blaming you're engaging in. If you're making money and people are offering
to buy your company, things must not be too bad. So what's your real
complaint?
And I'd really like to know how Democrats have destroyed your industrial
market.
>
> Why don't you come and visit?
If I'm headed to Cleveland with time to spare, I'll take you up on it.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
In other words, you're not investing because of taxes you think are coming.
But how does not investing improve that picture for you? Are you expecting
losses? Are you expecting your market to decline?
And if those are reasonable expectations, why are people offering to buy
your company from you? Are they stupid? And if you expect losses but there
are people ready to buy your company RIGHT NOW, why in hell aren't you
selling?
None of the complaints seem to hold together.
--
Ed Huntress
Gunner Asch
In California..small business is dying like flies in a Raid filled room.
And large business is dying as well.
Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
F. George McDuffee
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
>Administration.
>
>In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?
>
>TMT
>
>Why the September Jobs Report Is So Brutal
>By Liz Wolgemuth Liz Wolgemuth
>Fri Oct 2, 12:55 pm ET
<snip>
==========
Part of the problem is that we on this newsgroup are stuck in the
old obsolete economic model where you have to make something and
sell it for more than it cost to make, if you were going to show
a profit.
The new economic reality is such that you *CAN* borrow your way
to wealth if you don't mind sending going businesses and their
people down the toilet, one after another, and stiffing the
bondholders and other creditors.
see 4 part article on how to do this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html
<snip>
Simmons says it will soon file for bankruptcy protection, as part
of an agreement by its current owners to sell the company � the
seventh time it has been sold in a little more than two decades �
all after being owned for short periods by a parade of different
investment groups, known as private equity firms, which try to
buy undervalued companies, mostly with borrowed money.
<snip>
For many of the company�s investors, the sale will be a disaster.
Its bondholders alone stand to lose more than $575 million. The
company�s downfall has also devastated employees like Noble
Rogers, who worked for 22 years at Simmons, most of that time at
a factory outside Atlanta. He is one of 1,000 employees � more
than one-quarter of the work force � laid off last year.
But Thomas H. Lee Partners of Boston has not only escaped
unscathed, it has made a profit. The investment firm, which
bought Simmons in 2003, has pocketed around $77 million in
profit, even as the company�s fortunes have declined. THL
collected hundreds of millions of dollars from the company in the
form of special dividends. It also paid itself millions more in
fees, first for buying the company, then for helping run it. Last
year, the firm even gave itself a small raise.
Wall Street investment banks also cashed in. They collected
millions for helping to arrange the takeovers and for selling the
bonds that made those deals possible. All told, the various
private equity owners have made around $750 million in profits
from Simmons over the years.
How so many people could make so much money on a company that has
been driven into bankruptcy is a tale of these financial times
and an example of a growing phenomenon in corporate America.
Every step along the way, the buyers put Simmons deeper into
debt. The financiers borrowed more and more money to pay ever
higher prices for the company, enabling each previous owner to
cash out profitably.
But the load weighed down an otherwise healthy company. Today,
Simmons owes $1.3 billion, compared with just $164 million in
1991, when it began to become a Wall Street version of �Flip This
House.�
<snip>
Gunner Asch
Because Ed has been largely a failure in Business and has spent his last
several years doing "craftsman" type work.
Id be surprised if he could turn a crank on any machine without some
serious thought and some outside prodding.
Having his world view of others and his OWN sucesses invalidated would
give him a serious case of the Ass..so dont expect him to visit any time
soon.
Gunner
Too_Many_Tools
> "Buerste" <buer...@wowway.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Mo9ym.126270$Y83....@newsfe21.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> >news:qYadnVantcYSm1TX...@giganews.com...
> >> Buerste wrote:
> >>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> >>>news:yMCdnVlGfrOvF1vX...@giganews.com...
> >>>> Buerste wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL...he is too busy blaming Obama for his business setbacks.
And oh look here's recent another poll...with Obama Getting 56% Job
Approval
Last time I looked that is a majority.
And what do you know...here's another one.
Loser Sarah Cut n Run Palin getting an unfavorable 55%.
That would make it a majority too.
I guess that would make Obama haters and Palin lovers both minorities.
Laugh..laugh..laugh..
TMT
Obama Gets 56% Job Approval Amid Deficit Concerns, Poll Shows
By Heidi Przybyla
Sept. 16 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama earns high marks for
his performance even as Americans express anxiety about his domestic
policies. One possible reason: Republicans aren’t offering an
alternative.
A Bloomberg News poll gives Obama a job-approval rating of 56 percent
and 61 percent say they feel favorably about him. Still, respondents
are divided over the president’s handling of health care and the
economy, while giving him a negative grade on the growth of the
budget
deficit.
“Americans are despairing of the federal deficit in the wake of
several huge government spending programs,” says J. Ann Selzer, the
president of Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm that
conducted the poll. “Health care is one more big- ticket item and
taxpayers appear to believe at some point they, or their children,
will hold the bag.”
Republicans aren’t benefiting from the negative sentiment toward the
economic policies, the poll shows. The survey finds that by about a
2-
to-1 margin, Americans say Obama is doing a better job on the economy
than his predecessor, George W. Bush.
“He’s got good ideas,” says poll respondent Donna Lawrence, a 55-
year-
old corrections administrator from Richmond, Virginia.
‘Hornets’ Nest’
She says some of the public is too impatient and Obama has kept the
economy from getting worse. “He walked into a hornets’ nest when he
came into office,” and the stimulus and the bailouts of the auto and
financial industries have helped, she says.
Respondents also say by 40 percent to 32 percent that they would vote
for a Democratic candidate for Congress in 2010. A slight plurality,
48 percent to 44 percent, has a favorable opinion of the Democratic
Party. The Republican Party, by 52 percent to 38 percent, gets an
unfavorable rating.
The survey finds that even as Obama has tried in recent months to
stress the urgency of overhauling health care, for almost half of
Americans, the economy is the most important issue facing the
country.
Health care comes second, with 23 percent.
Slightly more Americans are pessimistic than optimistic about the
U.S.
government’s economic plan. Americans are divided over the
president’s
handling of the issue as well as over whether his stimulus program
will create jobs. They are also about evenly divided over his
handling
of health care.
The Bloomberg Poll is based on interviews with 1,004 U.S. adults ages
18 or older from Sept. 10-14. The margin of error is plus or minus
3.1
percentage points.
Deficit Concerns
Pessimism over Obama’s handling of the budget deficit is a major
factor behind the negative attitudes.
Americans consider the deficit such a problem that a majority, 62
percent, say they would be willing to risk a longer-lasting recession
to avoid more government spending. Just 28 percent say they thought
more spending would do the most good to help the economy.
Poll respondent Bruce Varholy, a 60-year-old builder from York,
Pennsylvania who is an independent voter, is among the 52 percent of
Americans who say the country is on the wrong track.
“The amount of money that is being squandered right now by the
government is going to really hurt us down the road,” he says. “I
just
view the government as so totally corrupt I don’t even know how it
functions.”
Tab for Grandchildren
Even some who support Obama say they are concerned about spending. “I
don’t want to see my grandchildren and great grandchildren have to
have this on their backs when they become adults,” says Lawrence, the
poll respondent from Virginia.
While they express anxiety about spending, home values, retirement
savings and household income, just 33 percent of respondents say they
have no confidence Obama’s team will be able to fix the problems that
caused the nation’s financial crisis.
More than half, 54 percent, say they are also mostly optimistic about
the ability of the government to ultimately help the economy recover.
“A year ago we were really standing at the edge of the cliff,” says
poll respondent Mike Dole, a 64-year-old Veterans Affairs employee in
Bethesda, Maryland. “Something needed to be done very, very severely,
and he did it.”
Some differences in impressions of the U.S. economic policy appear
when answers are broken down by demographic groups. Fifty-eight
percent of women say they are mostly optimistic about the ability of
the government to help the economy recover and grow, compared with 49
percent of men.
Optimism Among Blacks
In a sign that Obama’s support from black voters during the election
is carrying over to his presidency, blacks are also far more
optimistic than whites, with 83 percent expressing optimism compared
with 48 percent of whites.
While Americans are about equally divided over Obama’s record on
health care, when it comes to foreign policy he enjoys solid
approval.
Sixty percent of poll respondents approve of the job Obama is doing
in
managing relations with other countries, and 51 percent approve of
his
policies on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama’s 61 percent favorable rating is matched by Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, his former competitor for the 2008 Democratic
presidential nomination, who scores 62 percent.
Both fare better than some other major political figures, including
Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who gets an unfavorable
rating of 48 percent, and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the
former Republican vice presidential candidate, who has the highest
unfavorable numbers of all, at 55 percent. Former Republican House
Speaker Newt Gingrich gets 39 percent.
The poll also probes attitudes on climate change, finding that 40
percent of Americans view it as a major threat, compared with 31
percent who say it’s a minor threat and just 27 percent who say it’s
no real threat at all.
To contact the reporter on this story: Heidi Przybyla in Washington
at
hprzyb...@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: September 15, 2009 18:00 EDT
Too_Many_Tools
> In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
> Administration.
>
> In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?
>
> TMT
>
> By Liz Wolgemuth Liz Wolgemuth
> Fri Oct 2, 12:55 pm ET
>
> cutting their payrolls than in keeping their existing employees, let
> alone adding new ones. Employers slashed another 263,000 jobs last
> month, the Labor Department reported today. That brings nonfarm
> employment down to the level of 2004, when there were about 7 million
> fewer U.S. workers.
>
> Workers are dropping out: The unemployment rate edged up only
> slightly, to 9.8 percent, but the number of workers in the labor force
> fell by 571,000, suggesting the unemployment rate could have been much
> worse. The ranks of the marginally attached--workers who have dropped
> out of the workforce because they believe they won't find jobs or
> because they have other responsibilities, such as school--have grown
> by 615,000 over the year.
>
> There are not enough jobs: A bill that would provide another 13 weeks
> of federally funded unemployment benefits to hard-hit states sailed
> through the House last week but may be complicated by some senators'
> efforts to get benefit extensions for all states. In some states,
> eligible workers have already received as many as 79 weeks of
> benefits. Historically, spells of unemployment that lasted a year or
> more were very rare, says Harvard economist Lawrence Katz, a Harvard
> economist. These trends are the sorts that haven't been seen since the
> Great Depression.
>
> Indeed, the number of workers who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or
> more--called "long-term unemployed"--rose by 450,000, to 5.4 million.
> Last month, 36 percent of the unemployed had been out of work for at
> least six months. The unemployed face a market in which job seekers
> outnumber job openings by a ratio of 6 to 1.
>
> Governments are now feeling the heat: While most other industries
> slashed jobs throughout the recession, the government sector held up
> pretty well, helping cushion capital cities from the roughest economic
> patches. Last month, however, strains on local governments started to
> show. Government employment fell by 53,000, with the largest
> drop--24,000 jobs--in the noneducation component of local governments.
>
> Progress has slowed: September job losses were much worse than most
> economists expected--the median estimate was a loss of 175,000. The
> government also revised the prior data to show 201,000 jobs were lost
> in August, rather than the 216,000 originally reported, meaning the
> trend of narrowing job losses really shifted last month. "Today's
> report suggests that the progress toward a recovery in labor market
> conditions has stalled," Ted Weiseman and David Greenlaw, economists
> at Morgan Stanley, said in a morning note. "We continue to expect to
> see some eventual follow through on the hiring side, given the recent
> improvement in production and demand, but the September data reinforce
> the fact that some important headwinds remain."
>
> Hours fell back down: Along with payroll cuts, many employers have
> slashed their workers' hours to help lower expenses, and there are now
> 9.2 million "involuntary" part-time workers (those who would prefer
> full-time work). The average workweek edged up in August, but
> September erased the gain, and the workweek is again at a record low
> 33.0 hours.
>
> Construction and manufacturing are still hurting: Since the start of
> the recession, 1.5 million jobs have been erased in the construction
> industry. Employers in construction slashed 64,000 jobs last month,
> which, at least, was fewer than they were cutting late last year and
> earlier this year. The pain was greatest in nonresidential components,
> where 39,000 jobs were cut. Manufacturing lost 51,000 jobs. That's
> also fewer than were being cut earlier in the recession, but
> manufacturing payrolls have shrunk by 2.1 million since the start of
> the downturn.
>
> The future is unclear: One of the most difficult things to understand
> about September's jobs report is how far the job market reality was
> from the government's stimulus forecast. The White House estimated
> that with the stimulus, the unemployment rate would peak at 8 percent.
> Without a clear plan to stimulate future job growth, it's unclear how
> long it will take for the 15.1 million unemployed to gain re-
> employment in any significant volume. Employers tend to shy away from
> the risk of new hires until they are confident of the state of the
> economy. Even for the long-term unemployed, "when the economy is
> chugging along, firms are willing to take a chance" on hiring and
> training, says Katz.
>
> Still, the market is improving, as job losses are much less than they
> were last winter. "What is still very much open to question is how
> fast the move will be to stabilization of payrolls and eventually to
> job growth," says Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR. "We
> continue to believe that the process will be a slow one and that
> households will be contending with weak income growth and balance
> sheet issues for some time."
Perhaps this is a task for the Nation...and for new jobs.
TMT
Get everyone in US online, high-level panel says
By DAVID BAUDER, AP Television Writer - Sat Oct 3, 2009 6:28PM EDT
NEW YORK - The nation needs to give the same urgency to making sure
all Americans have broadband access as the Eisenhower administration
did in building an interstate highway system a half-century ago, a
report released Friday concluded.
The Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a
Democracy expressed worry about whether the news industry's financial
woes will make for a less educated citizenry and considered whether
the government should prop up independent journalists.
The commission includes two former FCC chairmen, newspaper publishers,
a top Google executive, the NAACP president and a former CNN
president. It concluded that a free flow of information "is as vital
to the healthy functioning of communities as clean air, safe streets,
good schools and public health," and that it's time for leaders to
give it a higher priority.
It drew parallels to both the Eisenhower administration's building of
roads and the Lincoln administration's effort to build the
transcontinental railroad.
Considering how much business is done on the Web, including the
process of applying for jobs, it's vital to get as many people plugged
in as possible, the commission said. More than a third of Americans do
not subscribe to broadband services and, in many rural communities,
they don't even have the option.
"You have to have access in order to be socially first class,
economically first class and politically first class," said Alberto
Ibarguen, former Miami Herald publisher and president and CEO of the
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
He said he is encouraged that the Obama administration appears to be
making the effort a priority.
Government should also provide incentives to broadband and cable
television service providers so they quickly wire areas that are
underserved. Michael Powell, a former Federal Communications
Commission chairman and member of the Knight group, said he would like
to see the FCC be less entangled in regulation and take a more active
role in seeing these goals are met.
As this is being done, the commission said funding should be provided
so public libraries can make Internet access and media literacy
programs readily available.
The commission said independent journalism plays a vital watchdog role
and wrestled with how to encourage it.
"We do have something that is deteriorating and is not being replaced
in the old form, and that is cause for worry," Powell said.
Government should increase support for news-gathering at public radio
and television stations and explore how it could provide incentives
for new business models that offer quality journalism, the commission
said.
But the commission came to no consensus on whether private-sector
journalists should get public subsidies, an idea that would test the
historical tradition of journalists' independence from government.
ABC News President David Westin, who was not on the commission, said
he hoped the report would not be misinterpreted as a call for
government to replace local reporting done by newspapers as newspapers
retrench. There are already new businesses emerging to try and fill
that role, he said.
Powell noted the same, saying people should be less concerned about
the format in which information is provided and more concerned that
people are available to provide it.
"It's difficult enough when I get the call from somebody in government
complaining about the way we reported something," Westin said. "But if
the person himself who is getting the call is either directly or
indirectly employed by government, that could be dangerous."
The commission urged that the government operate with as much
transparency as it can in coming years, offering low-cost access to
public records and making social data readily available.
It endorsed efforts to provide communities with information in as many
forms possible, including mobile phones. Each community should also
have an Internet hub — a Web site that provides links to many forms of
local information, it said.
"This is an extraordinarily propitious moment," Ibarguen said. "We
didn't have this when we started out two years ago. This is an
opportunity."
heytwo
> "Buerste" <buer...@wowway.com> wrote in message
>
> news:E8eym.77550$4t6....@newsfe06.iad...
----------------------------------------
> > "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> >news:4ac95cfe$0$22522$607e...@cv.net...
>
> >> <dcas...@krl.org> wrote in message
> >>news:287863c2-158a-40af...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Oct 4, 7:09 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>> It makes it even MORE economically attractive for Tom to invest in new,
> >>> more
> >>> productive equipment, so he can compete. Reducing wages then moves his
> >>> equilibrium point up for a while, and then it just reduces aggregate
> >>> demand.
> >>> Individually, Tom won't notice it. But if other small businessmen do the
> >>> same thing, we'll all notice it.
>
> >>>But investing on more productive equipment means that Tom can employ
> >>>fewer workers. So this is not where the jobs are going to come from.
Jobs are a Liberal myth . We are supposed to be using ROBOTs
to produce everything .
Tax is the death of every clever American product ,
30 years ago , all US industrialists ran , took the money to
UK offshore banks .
I remember trying to start a RadioShack , in late 70's .
Its all US govt rip off . He would not assure me , id get my fair
share of inventory , coming to my city . He would withhold , wait
til
my store bankrupted , pick up store lease , be profitable as a
company owned store in less than 30 days .
Thanks to US Govt/Justice system . .
Job loss goes up in Dec 2010 . Every 80 years , there
is a world wide depression . 6.2 billion , all asking their
gov to give them a job .
2007 WSJ said US "value" lost 50% ..
If you know a "land rich" person today , talk to him in 2
years !
Its use of land and Liberal financing , that pumped up Real Estate .
Double hit , No financing in 2010 , and factory closings , mean
disaster for US Land , homes , factories , cars , trucks , TV sets ,
dish washers , computers .. OHH i got carried away ..
Digest all that with a new free Cell Phone method .
The law cant stop WiFi . Every NoteBook has WiFi ,
and its not throttled , except for Bill Gates and "ad hoc" ,
PC to PC . Businessmen will not travel , in a depression
they will use a new secret banking system and buy from
reliable sellors , to tunnel the Liberals tax-to-death business .
Paperless commerce .
--------------------------------------------
> > Your imaginary model of my business is so far off the mark I don't even
> > know where to BEGIN to correct you.
> > A. I don't HAVE any old equipment, haven't you been reading my posts for
> > the past ten years?
------------------------------------
"old equipment ?
Then alll your ROBOTs are new ?
You will not only use 100% Robots , you will be in competition
with the worlds best ..... like me .
There is no investment , no ROI , no profits , nada ,
when you compete with me .
Buerste
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:141jc590is5jmlh9c...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> In California..small business is dying like flies in a Raid filled room.
>
> And large business is dying as well.
>
And why don't libtards get that?
Buerste
<snip>
> And at the costs to you, if your $9,000/machine example is accurate, your
> cost to expand should be pretty reasonable. So what's all this talk about
> your not being able to invest?
Who said I'm not able...I don't WANT to, I don't trust what Democrats are
going to do and I'd be a fool not to be in a cash position.
.
>
> How have the Democrats destroyed your industrial market?
DUH...they've destroyed the whole fucking economy, everybody is frightened
and that WON'T change whether you think it's reasonable or not!
>
>>
>> I get four or more good, legitimate offers for my company every year and
>> many more bullshit ones. I can sell and retire any time I want for more
>> than I can ever spend. I must have done some things right, so I trust my
>> OWN judgment and instincts a whole lot more than yours.
>
> Well, that's reasonable. What's NOT reasonable is the sort of generalized
> blaming you're engaging in. If you're making money and people are offering
> to buy your company, things must not be too bad. So what's your real
> complaint?
My feet are dry for the time being but I have feelings for everyone else
(small businesses) that is drowning. I'll eventually succumb if the
Democrats have their way. You really don't see what this massive deficit
spending and the pending cap-n-tax is going to do...open your eyes and get
rid of those stupid glasses. Face it, the Democrats OWN the problems no
mater how much they blame Bush and they just keep making it worse and worse.
Buerste
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
I like Ed, he just has brain-lock. What makes a person go liberal? It
makes no sense, it's like they never think anything through or can't get
past the Kool-Aid induced synaptic short-circuits. The worst part is that
they THINK they have superior thoughts. My brother and sister in law (both
lawyers) are even worse liberals, they make 1/4 mil a year between then yet
they are always broke and over extended. It REALLY busted their chops when
their oldest boy joined the Army with the intention of Army Intel., just
passed Ranger school and eventually wants in to the FBI. They break out in
red blotches every time I mention it.(hee hee hee)
Buerste
The Democrats will be out of power in 2010, I'll hold out. If I sell now,
what would I do? Sit at home?
Gunner Asch
>>
>> Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
>> illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
>> unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
>> proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean
>> end.
>
>I like Ed, he just has brain-lock. What makes a person go liberal? It
>makes no sense, it's like they never think anything through or can't get
>past the Kool-Aid induced synaptic short-circuits. The worst part is that
>they THINK they have superior thoughts. My brother and sister in law (both
>lawyers) are even worse liberals, they make 1/4 mil a year between then yet
>they are always broke and over extended. It REALLY busted their chops when
>their oldest boy joined the Army with the intention of Army Intel., just
>passed Ranger school and eventually wants in to the FBI. They break out in
>red blotches every time I mention it.(hee hee hee)
Give the boy a high 5 and a hearty "Sua Sponte" from me, will ya?
He will understand.
Gunner Asch
Because Libtards think that the Obamassiah is working to make the
country Better..IE health care and free child care.
Damned shame they will soon be living out of their cars..or a big old
reefer or washer and dryer box and wondering how they are going to fix
their kids something to eat.
dca...@krl.org
> Do I have to teach you how to use Google now?
>
> The subject is where will the new jobs come from.
>
> If there will be no new jobs, then taxes will need to go up to make up
> for loss of revenues.
>
> TMT
That is the sort of response I expect from you. You can not find any
examples so you just babble.
I note that in your world there is no possibility of the government
cutting back when revenue falls.
Well I have had enough amusement for a while. You can post whatever.
No one will believe it anyway.
Dan
dca...@krl.org
> You're welcome to come visit anytime you like. Many hear at RCM have
> visited. But then I expect you to post a BUNCH of apologies.
Don't hold your breath while waiting for TMT to show up. He is scared
of his own shadow and is not about to actually meet someone in
person. Note that he has never said what state he lives in, what kind
of work he does, who he works for, used a real name, posted anything
in response to someone asking a question about metalworking, said
anything about a project he is making, expressed an interest in buying
any machine tools, identified any machine tools that others have
wanted information about, commented on any local officials, mentioned
what kind of vehicle he drives, or what kind of guns he owns, what
kind of machine tools he owns, or what branch of the military he was
in.
He could be anything from a prison inmate to a staunch Republican who
enjoys poking fun at his fellow Republicans.
Dan
wmbjk...@citlink.net
wrote:
>
>"Too_Many_Tools" <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:fd797a79-9fe2-4a18...@o21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>And it is interesting that "someone" is underreporting his taxes.
>
>TMT
>********************************************
>
>I have NEVER cheated on taxes or anything else...unlike how many
>high-ranking Democrats that have been caught just this year? If you ever
>accuse me again I WILL hunt you down like a dog. Apologize NOW!
LOL You're getting more like gummer every day. There's zero
difference between you saying that liberals have no work ethic, lie,
get "cheese checks" (all of which you've done repeatedly), and
somebody claiming that you're not reporting income. Ever heard of the
golden rule? Should you ever become man enough to apologize for all of
the unsupported partisan baloney that you're cranking out daily,
*then* maybe you'll be in a position to ask others to apologize to
you. In the meantime, if you're going to act like gummer, then why
wouldn't you expect to be treated like him? Heck, based on your
increasingly irrational behavior, I thought you *wanted* to be treated
like him. Now, get back on your keyboard and blurt out some gummyesque
crap about how you're too busy etc. to follow up on your threats. If
you feel up to it, then please go with one of my personal gumbyloon
favorites, and ask that TMT send you airfare so that you can deliver
an invisible beating.
Wayne
wmbjk...@citlink.net
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
>news:Ideym.77553$4t6....@newsfe06.iad...
>> It's PERCEIVED costs if the Democrats get their way and tax the shit out
>> of everything...and they certainly will if they have their way.
>
>In other words, you're not investing because of taxes you think are coming.
>But how does not investing improve that picture for you? Are you expecting
>losses? Are you expecting your market to decline?
Why bother asking him? First he says he's willing to invest in an
asinine new hire, then he says he won't invest because of the dems.
It's all horseshit that may as well be coming directly off gummer's
keyboard.
>And if those are reasonable expectations, why are people offering to buy
>your company from you? Are they stupid?
I don't believe a word of that stuff, or his claims of being wealthy.
>And if you expect losses but there
>are people ready to buy your company RIGHT NOW, why in hell aren't you
>selling?
He'll probably say that he doesn't need the money. Oh wait, I see that
he claims to be waiting for 2010. After the fantasy revolution one
presumes, when he plans to make some real money in the coffin biz.
'Cause we all know the premium that dead dems who don't work and are
all on the dole <snorf> will pay for their burials.
>None of the complaints seem to hold together.
No kidding. He jumped the shark a long time ago when he got to the
point that he could no longer make it through most of his posts
without scapegoating "libtards" or whatever. Now he's demanding Usenet
apologies. Now *there's* a surefire strategy that could only come from
a deep-thinking business owner! :-)
Wayne
Buerste
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:jr0kc55dtimdlc9de...@4ax.com...
Who cares what you say, think or do...you're just another lying,
cheese-check liberal that contributes nothing to society. No wonder you
don't have a job, you have no skills...not counting the fine job you did of
laminating your Obama poster. Please wear pants, your mother is complaining
about your skid marks on her furniture.
Buerste
<dca...@krl.org> wrote in message
news:1b7ee273-1686-415c...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Dan
*********************
Of course. Why do I try?
John R. Carroll
> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:qYadnVantcYSm1TX...@giganews.com...
>> Buerste wrote:
>>> "John R. Carroll" <nu...@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
>>> news:yMCdnVlGfrOvF1vX...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
>>>>>> Administration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TMT
>>>>>>
>>>>>
LOL
That didn't even make sense in the realm of what's best for the entire
country Tom.
Equally amusing is that Paul Krugman would have this published today.
He might be talking about you - specifically.
LOL
October 5, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Politics of Spite
By PAUL KRUGMAN
There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week,
when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago's bid to be host
of the 2016 Summer Games.
"Cheers erupted" at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard,
according to a blog post by a member of the magazine's staff, with the
headline "Obama loses! Obama loses!" Rush Limbaugh declared himself
"gleeful." "World Rejects Obama," gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.
So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the
modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party,
has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.
But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the
state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of
our nation's two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If
Republicans think something might be good for the president, they're against
it - whether or not it's good for America.
To be sure, while celebrating America's rebuff by the Olympic Committee was
puerile, it didn't do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has
determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially
serious consequences - in particular, in the debate over health care reform.
Now, it's understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to
extend insurance coverage - just as most Democrats opposed President Bush's
attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two
parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate
role of government.
But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when
Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments
were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing
guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much
risk.
The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown
no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim - based
mainly on lies about death panels and so on - that reform will undermine
Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party's
traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.
Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as
the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern
G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan - and Reagan was a fierce
opponent of Medicare's creation, warning that it would destroy American
freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts
in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly
decried the growth in entitlement spending - growth that is largely driven
by rising health care costs.
But the Obama administration's plan to expand coverage relies in part on
savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be
good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective
medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.
How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to
embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of
any future administration to govern?
The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has
been dominated by radicals - ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a
fundamental level, do not accept anyone else's right to govern.
Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must
have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that
Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the
federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those
Medicare cuts? And let's not even talk about the impeachment saga.
The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having
lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of
debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to;
the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace
have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they,
and only they, should govern.
The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening
the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that
matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the
current administration.
It's an ugly picture. But it's the truth. And it's a truth anyone trying to
find solutions to America's real problems has to understand.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1&hp
--
John R. Carroll
John R. Carroll
(hee hee hee) those blotches were more likely the result of them thinking
about the increased odds they might live to bury their son.
I don't see anything "hee hee hee" funny about that.
That you do is even less amusing.
--
John R. Carroll
Ed Huntress
Well, Tom, you have a solution. You get all those offers to buy your
business. If everything is going to tank, as you say, they must be really
stupid buyers, and you ought to help them part with their money.
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
You could go practice with your Mini-14, for the revolution Gunner says is
coming.
What if you hold out, and you're wrong? By then, if you're right, your
business will be worth nothing, right? Where will the buyers be then? Where
will the customers be?
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
<wmbjk...@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:u11kc5d7n3tvb8pv0...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:33:59 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
> <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
>>news:Ideym.77553$4t6....@newsfe06.iad...
>
>>> It's PERCEIVED costs if the Democrats get their way and tax the shit out
>>> of everything...and they certainly will if they have their way.
>>
>>In other words, you're not investing because of taxes you think are
>>coming.
>>But how does not investing improve that picture for you? Are you expecting
>>losses? Are you expecting your market to decline?
>
> Why bother asking him? First he says he's willing to invest in an
> asinine new hire, then he says he won't invest because of the dems.
> It's all horseshit that may as well be coming directly off gummer's
> keyboard.
Ha-ha! Tom is a smart guy. I've talked to him on the phone. He just likes to
play part-time troll, by his own admission. There's no doubt that he knows
he's gotten himself into some circular logic here, but it's fun to watch him
pace around the corral, thinking he's still a racehorse. d8-)
>
>>And if those are reasonable expectations, why are people offering to buy
>>your company from you? Are they stupid?
>
> I don't believe a word of that stuff, or his claims of being wealthy.
Oh, he's doing quite well. He inherited a business and he's grown it quite a
bit.
>
>>And if you expect losses but there
>>are people ready to buy your company RIGHT NOW, why in hell aren't you
>>selling?
>
> He'll probably say that he doesn't need the money.
Actually, I don't think he does. But his arguments make it sound like he's
hanging on by his fingernails.
> Oh wait, I see that
> he claims to be waiting for 2010. After the fantasy revolution one
> presumes, when he plans to make some real money in the coffin biz.
> 'Cause we all know the premium that dead dems who don't work and are
> all on the dole <snorf> will pay for their burials.
>
>>None of the complaints seem to hold together.
>
> No kidding. He jumped the shark a long time ago when he got to the
> point that he could no longer make it through most of his posts
> without scapegoating "libtards" or whatever. Now he's demanding Usenet
> apologies. Now *there's* a surefire strategy that could only come from
> a deep-thinking business owner! :-)
>
> Wayne
Think "hobby troller." That's Tom. He's much more sensible in real life.
--
Ed Huntress