LadyJazzer wrote: Yeah, that's why there have been 5.3 million jobs added since 2008...(when Bush only created 3 million in 8 years). Manufacturing is coming back. Apple just announced they are going to
build a new plant in the U.S.
to repatriate all those jobs and build Macs in the U.S.; the auto industry is going gangbusters, etc.
It's been explained to you many times the difference between the number of jobs needed during a time of full employment and during times of high unemployment, but the comprehension of that reality somehow still continues to elude you.
We didn't need more than 3 million new jobs during the Bush years. During the Bush administration anyone who wanted a job had a job. During the Bush administration college graduates were finding jobs when they graduated.
What do you think Dog's euphemistical use of "reducing overhead" means in plain English? Cutting jobs? Delaying the purchase of new equipment (which reduces demand and jobs in other sectors of the economy)? Perhaps reducing benefits and having their employees at a larger share of their own benefit package? This is how companies "reduce overhead", right?
Edited to add: Your own article notes that all the jobs are not going to be repatriated, only some of them. It clearly states that a line of Macs, not all of them, are going to be built here. It clearly says that since 60% of their sales occur outside of the US that they have obligations to places other than here.
the low unemployment rate that Bush inherited from the Clinton administration was bolstered by the record number of government jobs created by the Bush administration. Unemployment went from 4.1% in January 2001 to 7.2% by December 2008. Hardly a record of job creation despite the enormous increase in government jobs. The private sector employment went into the tank during the Bush administration despite the attempts to rewrite history.
Unemployment rose by over 3% during Bush, while you are complaining about the rate rising less than 2% under Obama which is now dropping to the levels that he inherited from Bush. And Obama has decreased the number of government jobs.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
The majority of that rise came during the last 11 months of the Bush Administration Dog. Up until the Democrats got control of the purse strings, unemployment was below 5% for the majority of the administration. It did spike, briefly, above 6% in the wake of the 9/11 attack.
Wasn't it about 1990 when Bush raised taxes after promising not to in his 1988 speech accepting the Republican nomination for President? Hmmmm. Seems to me that in the wake of raising taxes, the unemployment rate also rose appreciably and that it wasn't until 1997 or maybe 1998 that the unemployment level was at or below where it was prior to tax rates being raised by Bush and the Democrats in Congress as a means of addressing the budget deficit that their spending created.
PrintSmith wrote: The majority of that rise came during the last 11 months of the Bush Administration Dog. Up until the Democrats got control of the purse strings, unemployment was below 5% for the majority of the administration. It did spike, briefly, above 6% in the wake of the 9/11 attack.
Wasn't it about 1990 when Bush raised taxes after promising not to in his 1988 speech accepting the Republican nomination for President? Hmmmm. Seems to me that in the wake of raising taxes, the unemployment rate also rose appreciably and that it wasn't until 1997 or maybe 1998 that the unemployment level was at or below where it was prior to tax rates being raised by Bush and the Democrats in Congress as a means of addressing the budget deficit that their spending created.
The facts, which you were aware, are that there was a dramatic drop in private sector employment during the Bush administration (even while there was a record increase in government jobs), that more people lost their jobs and failed to find new employment during the Bush administration than under either the Clinton administration and the Obama administration, that unemployment went from 4.1% to 7.2% during the Bush administration, that more people found private sector employment during the Obama administration than under the Bush administration. Also, the democrats did not take control of congress until 2000, after the huge spike in unemployment during the Bush administration. But you knew that.
Every statement by LJ was true, while the statements made by you are demonstrably false. Why not try the truth for a change?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. It's a new, $63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers.
Employee benefits lawyer Chantel Sheaks calls it a "sleeper issue" with significant financial consequences, particularly for large employers.
"Especially at a time when we are facing economic uncertainty, (companies will) be hit with a multi-million dollar assessment without getting anything back for it," said Sheaks, a principal at Buck Consultants, a Xerox subsidiary.
Based on figures provided in the regulation, employer and individual health plans covering an estimated 190 million Americans could owe the per-person fee.
But the insurance fee had been overlooked as employers focused on other costs in the law, including fines for medium and large firms that don't provide coverage.
"This kind of came out of the blue and was a surprisingly large amount," said Gretchen Young, senior vice president for health policy at the ERISA Industry Committee, a group that represents large employers on benefits issues.
But employers already offering coverage to their workers don't see why they have to pony up for the stabilization fund, which mainly helps the individual insurance market. The redistribution puts the biggest companies on the hook for tens of millions of dollars.
"It just adds on to everything else that is expected to increase health care costs," said economist Paul Fronstin of the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute.
Knock me over with a feather. I'm sure this should help to kick start the economy eh?
LadyJazzer wrote: Wow... $63/person... My doodness... Whatever will those poor "job-creators" do? ( )
That will be passed on to the consumer. What you should be asking is how are the poor going to absorb this extra cost because in the end they are the ones that will be paying it not the insurance companies.
LadyJazzer wrote: Wow... $63/person... My doodness... Whatever will those poor "job-creators" do? ( )
That will be passed on to the consumer. What you should be asking is how are the poor going to absorb this extra cost because in the end they are the ones that will be paying it not the insurance companies.
Right, but don't forget that we have to tack on profit and processing costs to that fee just so the govt doesn't just add it to the income tax of the low income folks.
All taxes processed through businesses will be passed on to low level employees or customers. It is really the same thing as adding a tax to everyone who makes less than $40k a year.
Wow....My doodness (your word, not mine)... LJ coming out in favor of another regressive tax simply by not thinking it through. I feel that you should find a way to make sure this lands where you want and find a way to tax in a way that lands with the "job creators" or rich or whatever we want to call them. It seems you are off target for your own goals and they duped you a little, simply because there is so much to take in.
The people making less than $40,000/year are already being soaked for the tax-breaks for the richest 2%...which is what my comment was directed to. Make out of it anything you like, since twisting and spinning is what you do best.
) 
