Bush proposes (absurd) job plan

Post #150,108 by JayMehaffey 4/5/04 2:55:38 PM Reply	Bush proposes (absurd) job plan [link\|http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4668073/\|MSNBC] President Bush is using North Carolina, a state where a new economy is replacing the old, to propose doubling the number of Americans who receive job-training help from the federal government but without additional funding. The initiative Bush was announcing at Central Piedmont Community College contains no new federal spending with a budget deficit expected to approach $500 billion this year. Instead, it relies on $250 million Bush proposed spending earlier this year and forcing state and local governments to spend less on \ufffdadministrative expenses.\ufffd Bush is going to double the number of people in the job program by imposing government mandated efficiency improvements. Excuse me while I ROFLMAO. Jay
Post #150,111 by Andrew Grygus 4/5/04 3:10:22 PM Reply	W is not an idiot . . . . but he plays one very convincingly. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #150,116 by bepatient 4/5/04 3:17:11 PM Reply	Absurdity is creating 10 million new jobs... ...when only [link\|http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm\|8.4 million] people are unemployed. Apparently Kerry isn't very good at math either. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,117 by inthane-chan 4/5/04 3:24:32 PM Reply	Is that 8.4 million unemployed... ...total? Or just the number who have lost jobs in the last year? Remember, unemployment numbers are funky due to our exclusion of so-called "discouraged" workers. Nobody wins in a butter eating contest
Post #150,120 by bepatient 4/5/04 3:40:18 PM Reply	Thats the BLS data...total If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,123 by altmann 4/5/04 3:48:57 PM Reply	Re: Thats the BLS data...total Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data) The number of persons who were marginally attached to the labor force totaled 1.6 million in March, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. There were 514,000 discouraged workers in March, also about the same as a year earlier. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The other 1.1 million margin- ally attached had not searched for work for reasons such as school or family responsibilities. (See table A-13.) 1.6 million. Hmm. -- Chris Altmann
Post #150,127 by bepatient 4/5/04 4:01:54 PM Reply	Good...now we're 10 for 10 And we still have the issue of someone who's supposed to have a clue espousing a 0% unemployment rate :-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,129 by inthane-chan 4/5/04 4:08:52 PM Reply	10 million over 4 years. That's 2.5 million new jobs per year. Not 2.5 million new in addition to replacing jobs that are destroyed - just 2.5 million new jobs a year. Over four years. And yeah, I find it iffy that what he suggests will actually do a whole lot for the economy - there are structural issues in the current taxation system that need to be dealt with before the regular guy has a snowball's chance in hell of HAVING a snowball's chance in hell - but he seems to actually be willing to do something, instead of create massive welfare programs for the wealthy, like the current president. Nobody wins in a butter eating contest
Post #150,143 by bepatient 4/5/04 5:05:49 PM Reply	Right.... ...he won't make a welfare state for rich...but I would wager that his billion in new taxes aren't going to look that great to the folks who have to pay them. He seems a bit less than specific in the groups he's targeted over the years...so I'd wager that some of that ain't gonna be paid by just "the wealthy" If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,147 by inthane-chan 4/5/04 5:14:13 PM Reply	Bush is going to raise taxes after the election anyways. At this point, either a tax increase or a spending cut is a foregone conclusion, if we want to avoid becoming Argentina II: Revenge of the Peso. Given the screaming that the special interest groups are giving these days about cutbacks to their entitlements, I don't see him cutting spending much. Given his past behavior, I can't see Bush raising taxes on the people who can afford it - he'll mainly target the little guys, like you 'n me. At least with Kerry, we might see some smearing around of the pain, although I'm not too happy with his cut in the corporate tax rate. Nobody wins in a butter eating contest
Post #150,148 by bepatient 4/5/04 5:20:10 PM Reply	As with cuts... ...the only way you have have an impact is to change the rate on the big boys. If he raises it they pay more than you...if he cuts them they get more back. How it is spun is up to the opposition party and the press. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,578 by tuberculosis 4/8/04 9:18:26 PM Reply	Re: Right.... [i]...he won't make a welfare state for rich...but I would wager that his billion in new taxes aren't going to look that great to the folks who have to pay them.[/i] Like I care - push up the income tax to 80% - I'm not gonna miss the extry $19.95. Fact - I made $20k last year. I made 8 times that the year before. I'd vote for Charlie Manson at this point - he can't possibly be worse. Democracies are not well-run nor long-preserved with secrecy and lies. --Walter Cronkite
Post #150,668 by jb4 4/9/04 3:37:29 PM Reply	ICLRPD (new thread) Created as new thread #150667 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=150667\|ICLRPD] jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #150,119 by admin 4/5/04 3:31:13 PM Reply	By when? You need 150K new jobs each month just to keep pace. So that's just an additional 10 months past now. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #150,121 by bepatient 4/5/04 3:43:51 PM Reply	Hrmmm...need my calulator? ;-) Off by a zero dude. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,136 by admin 4/5/04 4:33:56 PM Reply	Er, what? 10M - 8.4M == 1.6M 1.6M / 150K = 10 You were saying? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #150,139 by bepatient 4/5/04 4:49:07 PM Reply	Ahh.... ...I see now. Thought you were saying something else. As Rosanne Rosannadanna would say... "Never mind!" If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,126 by JayMehaffey 4/5/04 4:01:09 PM Reply	Actually The number of persons who were marginally attached to the labor force totaled 1.6 million in March, about the same as a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Add those 1.6 to the basic 8.4 million and you get 10 million. But wait, there is more. In March, the number of persons who worked part time for economic reasons increased to 4.7 million, about the same level as in January. These individuals indicated that they would like to work full time but were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time jobs. It doesn't say how many, but there are probably another 2 to 3 million jobs that would be needed to satify these people. On top of that is an uncertain number of the newly "self employed consultants" who are not listed as unemployed despite having no work. And an unknown number of people who are not listed as part of the work force but would take jobs if they could find a decent one, such as people who took an early retirement because they couldn't find work. All things considered, I wouldn't be surprised if you could add some 15 million jobs before you began to squeeze the job market. Jay
Post #150,128 by bepatient 4/5/04 4:06:15 PM Reply	Heh. 15 million jobs when there's barely 15 million total among all classes of unemployed (tracked in the % figure or not). Again, we're back to that magical marginal umemployment rate of near 0. It would be interesting to see. (Maybe he'll convince Heinz to move some corporate functions back from Ireland to Pittsburgh ;-) ) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,152 by Ashton 4/5/04 5:45:17 PM Reply	Til you Econ boys manufacture a 'Part-Time' category None of your 'employment' numbers will mean shit - especially: all those multi-digit ones with false-precision beyond about two decimal places, as suggest that someone really Measured something. BS by-the-numbers. And until 'health care' and 'retirement' [Hah!] become separated from the machinations of the revolving-door, week-by-week Neo-"workplace" -- even two digit precision will remain laughable; mere spin-fodder as always. Faked Numbers - how the 2% got the 50%. Maybe when we teach this with examples, in grammar school.. if we do it in time, there may be less blood. (Sorry, undertakers)
Post #150,154 by mmoffitt 4/5/04 5:48:51 PM Reply	Dunno how, but I do know why. ...how the 2% got the 50% So they can "trickle" upon us, of course. (See, I did pay attention in the two Econ classes I had as an undergrad ;-) bcnu, Mikem The soul and substance of what customarily ranks as patriotism is moral cowardice and always has been...We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had-- the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism. - Mark Twain, "Monarchical and Republican Patriotism"
Post #150,198 by bepatient 4/5/04 10:41:16 PM Reply	right. so why bother tracking it. Its all bullshit anyway. nothing matters until its done the >right< way...right? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #150,211 by Ashton 4/6/04 3:06:47 AM Reply	Lots of things matter. Imagining that numbers can both characterize and quantify them all - in that direction lies madness. Ours - and reinforced by every MBA course as sells this model. Hearsay suggests - that's most of them.

Welcome to IWETHEY!