Matt Kaufman is a supervisor for the Steamboat Ski & Sport pro shop at the base of Steamboat Ski Area and is one of the many seasonal employees who are supported by ski season tourism in Steamboat Springs.

Photo by John F. Russell

Matt Kaufman is a supervisor for the Steamboat Ski & Sport pro shop at the base of Steamboat Ski Area and is one of the many seasonal employees who are supported by ski season tourism in Steamboat Springs.

October unemployment hits 9.2 percent in Routt County

Jobless rate up from September’s 8.5 percent

Advertisement

— More than 1,200 jobless Routt County residents could be affected by a loss of federal benefits that expired Tuesday after an extension failed in the U.S. Senate.

Routt County’s unemployment rate was 9.2 percent in October, an increase from the 8.5 percent rate in September and the 6.9 percent rate in October 2009, according to figures recently released by the Colorado Division of Labor and Employment. The county’s 9.2 percent rate represents 1,245 people out of its total October work force of 13,507.

Brian Bradbury, employment specialist at the Steam­boat Springs branch of the Colo­rado Work­force Center, said the 1,245 figure reflects the number of claims for unemployment benefits in Routt County. Brad­bury called Oct­ober’s unemployment increase a “very typical” reflection of off-season job figures in Steamboat’s resort-driven community. But he noted that Routt County has one of the highest unemployment rates in North­west Colo­rado heading into winter.

Bradbury said his office off Anglers Drive has fielded “numerous questions and people calling in” to ask about congressional action about unemployment benefits as the national debate intensified in recent weeks.

Tuesday’s rejection of a proposed extension does not apply to state benefits, which people can get for 26 weeks after losing a job.

“That regular state claim is always there,” Bradbury said. “It’s just the federal emergencies that we’re talking about.”

Federal unemployment benefits are tiered. Brad­bury said the combination of all state and federal programs can provide benefits for as many as 99 weeks after the loss of a job.

People seeking a higher tier of federal benefits must apply this week.

“By Dec. 4, you won’t be able to apply for any type of next level,” Bradbury said.

Efforts to extend federal benefits could continue in the lame-duck Congress. Bill Thoennes, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Labor and Em­­ployment, said those without work should continue to file claims for benefits.

“Even if you’re losing your benefits, it’s a good idea to continue your claim by continuing to call in or to go online. … Just keep reporting,” he said. “Then, if by any chance a law passes and (federal benefits) can continue, it will be easier to reactivate that claim.”

Thoennes said the department’s website, www.colorado.gov/cdle, is the best venue for filing new claims. He said those with questions can call 1-800-388-5515, but he warned that those lines are seeing increasingly heavy use.

“Our phone lines have become so jammed, in all likelihood, they’ll get a busy signal for quite a while,” he said. “I know that must be very enraging to keep getting a busy signal, hour after hour, day after day.”

Bradbury’s office, in the Sundance at Fish Creek plaza, offers a respite from long phone delays every Wednesday, including today.

He said the office provides a hot line to the state department from 9 to 11:30 a.m. and 1 to 3:30 p.m. every Wednesday, drastically reducing hold times for people with questions or seeking to file claims.

The hot line service is first-come, first-served, he said.

Ski area still hiring

Meanwhile, one of the county’s largest employers still has a few open positions for winter.

Trish Sullivan, vice president of human resources for Steam­boat Ski and Resort Corp., said about 15 open positions remain at Steamboat Ski Area, in a variety of positions and hours. Sullivan said people can see job listings and apply at http://steamboat.com/jobs, or visit Ski Corp.’s human resources office in the gondola building.

The ski area will peak at about 1,800 employees this season, a staffing on par with recent years.

“We had a lot of applicants,” she said. “We did our annual recruitment trip to Yellowstone (National Park), but as with last year, we are seeing a lot of applicants from the local area.”

That local interest is reflected in a decrease of foreign workers this winter. Sullivan said the ski area will have 50 to 60 foreign workers this winter, down from about 75 a year ago.

Those workers primarily are in the United States with a temporary H-2B visa, she said. There are a few workers on J-1 student visas and none using the Q visa cultural exchange program.

— To reach Mike Lawrence, call 871-4233 or e-mail mlawrence@steamboatpilot.com

Comments

Scott Wedel 4 years ago

Routt County had 1,200 fewer jobs in Oct 2010 than in Oct 2009 and workforce shrunk by 1,000.

Number employed for Oct has declined nearly 3,000 from Oct 2008. About 25% reduction in number employed.

0

pitpoodle 4 years ago

So, how's that Stimulus plan working for you?

0

Scott Wedel 4 years ago

So how do you like the Republican's refusal to extend jobless benefits?

0

pitpoodle 4 years ago

I love it. They are refusing to extend benefits unless a comparable amount is taken from the unspent money already allocated elsewhere. It makes sense to me. We cannot continue the spending without a plan to take it from somewhere else. Oh those mean Repubs.

0

blue_spruce 4 years ago

Actually pp, I wouldn't say they were "mean", just completely self-interested and corrupt. Just look at the debate over extending the Bush tax-cuts. Even as the Dems re-position themselves to accept a tax break for everyone who makes under $1 MILLION - up from the 250k number - the GOP is crying about it. Really?!? Many of these people who do actually make $1MIL+ a year are part of the financial sector, and are a VERY BIG part of the problem!! Do you really want these people to get tax relief?!?

0

pitpoodle 4 years ago

Either the tax cuts remain in tact for everyone or no one should get them. I do not think class warfare helps any of us. I do not believe rich people are a very big part of the problem any more than the people who legitimately need a handout. The bigger problem stems from the people who think they deserve a handout at the expense of the rest of us.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years ago

Given our financial situation this is just the start of austerity needed to bring us back to reality. Having our backs against the wall, forces us to think in another gear. It will be a miracle if our politicos can summons up the courage to put a dent in this fiasco. God help us.

0

housepoor 4 years ago

Here is what you get by a GOP controlled house. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101201/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_school_nutrition

Didn't Gingrich do something like this awhile back?

Maybe they think it's for the kids own good, they'll learn early that there is no such thing as a free lunch!!

0

Scott Wedel 4 years ago

Well then if austerity is needed then the obvious move is to save far far more by not extending the tax cuts.

It makes no sense to talk about austerity while demanding approval of tax cuts that will cost $4 trillion over 10 years while complaining a $67B unemployment extension is not paid for.

First time ever that government has failed to extend employment benefit when national unemployment rate is above 7.5%. BTW, when unemployment is high then economic studies show that it is basically okay that if some people don't get jobs because they are getting unemployment insurance. Basically, when there is high unemployment then even people that really want to work have trouble finding jobs and it works out better if those would rather collect benefits are not competing with the worker bees. And unemployment benefits are most directly a stimulus because the money is almost entirely spent quickly on necessities as compared to saved or used on luxuries.

The key is to not extend benefits in normal times so that a portion of the population cannot expect to live off of governments benefits indefinitely.

If the Democrats in congress collectively had half a brain then they'd refuse to consider the tax cuts until after congress voted on extending the unemployment benefits. And force what is supposed to happen in a democracy, both sides agreeing to work on important issues.

0

pitpoodle 4 years ago

If the Dems collectively had half a brain they would accept the Reps proposal to extend benefits if a comparable amount is taken from the unspent money already allocated elsewhere (as they have identified). You can't just keep spending as Dems seem to want to do. There are consequences. Unemployed people spending on necessities does not create jobs. Rich people investing their disposable income stimulates the economy and the job market.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years ago

The evidence is far stronger that it is far more effective to give money to people that will spend it than to rich people that may invest it.

If the money is being given to unemployed that then spend it then businesses (invested money) do better and can expand and so on.

If the money is given to wealthy then it may be saved (in which case the benefit is the same as the fed giving banks access to the fed's discount window) or spent on things like paintings in which there is no overall economic benefit.

So if the deficit matters, how is the $4 trillion extension of Bush taxes being paid for? If those don't need to be paid for then why require the more stimulative unemployment extension be paid for?

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

So rich people spending money creates jobs? Really? The Bush tax cuts of '01 & '03 were tilted mainly to the wealthly. Where are the jobs created from these tax cuts? Where is the strong economy from these tax cuts? The rich were given extra money due to these tax cuts, yet the Bush administration oversaw the worst job creation in 70 years. It doesnt' add up. And, you seem to be so worried about paying for jobless benefits with spending cuts, yet you supports extending Bush era tax cuts w/out paying for them, as the GOP plan will do. Which is it? Do you support pay as you go, or do you only support pay as you go when it is a Democratic idea?

0

pitpoodle 4 years ago

Scott, please explain where you found the evidence that it is far stronger and more effective to give money to people who will spend it than to rich people that may invest it. That make no sense to me. Explain with facts, please. Actually, I said rich people with expendable incomes invest and create jobs not just by spending it on paintings, etc. You are confusing job creation with spending. As I have said many times, tax cuts should be for everyone not just the people Dems say should have cuts. If they want to pick and choose who gets the tax cut then I say no tax cut extension for any one. That's fair.

0

housepoor 4 years ago

The rich are actually buying gold and investing in emerging markets both of which do nothing to create jobs or stimulate the economy. The poor on the other hand buy necessities.

I say just let them all expire, end the debate, suck it up and make the tough unpopular choice, it will suck, but I bet 2 years we will be stronger for it.

0

pitpoodle 4 years ago

House, don't really know where you got your information on rich spending. I would like to know your sources. However, I tend to agree with you, in a sense, on the tax cuts. But, there is the ugly issue of raising taxes (which allowing tax cuts to expire will do for everyone) and will only serve to increase the government's tax base allowing them to spend as they wish. Growing government is not ever a solution to creating private sector jobs and improving the economy.

0

housepoor 4 years ago

I’m not recommending growing government. If and it’s a big IF, they stay on the current direction of freezing or cutting spending along with letting the tax cuts expire the country will be in a stronger position. The other option is make to them permanent and make the cuts NOW to social securityMedicare and defense to balance the budget, I’m fine with that also. But the next time we go to war unprovoked I want the Pres to say we are attacking Iraq and to that I am raising everyone’s taxes .5% to pay for it. Or how about this, we split the difference down the middle between the old tax rate and Bush’s cuts and make them permanent? Extending them temporarily only postpones the inevitable and we have the same debate 2 years from now with a much larger deficit.

0

pitpoodle 4 years ago

"The other option is make to them permanent and make the cuts NOW to social securityMedicare and defense to balance the budget, I’m fine with that also."
Me too - I've got no problem with that. Although medicare and defense spending won't do it all. We need to support the new commission's recommendation to change the tax system and cut spending. I wish congress would just adopt their recommendations. Write to your congressman, House.

0

sledneck 4 years ago

Pay as you go is not and has not been a "democrat idea". Thats a joke, Trout.

Saying we need to "pay for" current tax rates is like a robber asking me to pay him not to rob me.

Who mines the gold, housepoor? Ever heard of a little company called Caterpillar? If the "poor" do so much for job creation why are there so many poor and yet so few jobs? Anyone on this blog ever get a job from someone poorer than themselves?

You guys actually believe taking buckets of water from the deep end of the pool and pouring them into the shallow end will somehow raise the water level. Amusing.

You guys actually believe that since the system is complicated and the water is muddied that somehow the LAWS of economics will bend to your roundabout logic/ wishes. Pitiful.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee..."

0

Scott Wedel 4 years ago

Pitpoodle, Well, it is pretty basic Keynesian economics. If you believe that government running deficits is stimulative then it is more effective to put the money in the hands of people that spend it. Giving it to rich people is not as effective because they might save it or spend it one a overseas trip and so on. It all relates to the economic concept of the velocity of money. Where money is more stimulative the more times it quickly changes hands.

The historical challenge for Keynesian economic stimulus is that it is hard to go back to "normal" even after the economy has recovered. So deficits continue even when the economy is healthy.

And Defense and Medicare budget cuts will do most of it. Those programs are huge and if you need to cut where the big money is being spent.

But regardless, it is the very definition of hypocrisy to worry about the budget impact of a one time $67 billion of extending unemployment insurance and ignore the budget impact of nearly $4 trillion over 10 years (aka $400 billion a year) tax cuts.

If the Republicans want to propose and vote for $400 billion a year cuts in defense and medicare to pay for the tax cuts then they'd have some moral grounds to criticize extending unemployment insurance. But these same Republican policies of cutting taxes first with vague promises to cut spending later is what turned a budget surplus left by Clinton in 2000 into large deficits.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years ago

Sled, So in your world it'd be best if there were no taxes and all government spending was deficit spending?

Responsible government budgets balance revenues and spending. If you want no taxes then expect no spending. If you want tax cuts then spending needs to also decrease. It is irresponsible to cut taxes and leave spending alone. That is exactly what the Greeks did. You may not like the German style of government because they pay higher taxes, but they have largely been good since WW II at keeping spending near revenues and they have kept their currency strong and so on.

0

1999 4 years ago

trickle down economics has NEVER worked.

0

sledneck 4 years ago

Please don't reffer me to European models of success, Scott. Whenever someone tells me they are from Europe I say really? Which part of europe are you from? the part whose ass we kicked or the part whose ass we saved? How many US Dollars did Eurpoe get after WW 2? How much financial benefit has Europe enjoyed from Americas military protection from the Soviet Union? Ever heard of Ramstein AFB? How many air force bases does Germany fund in America to protect us??

Nobody need explain to me the relationship between revenue and spending. Here's a concept... STOP THE DAMN SPENDING and you won't have to worry about revenue. Cut the federal, imperial government by 75% and there will be ample revenue.

But you know why Americans won't do that? Because of peoples insatiable desire to rule over their fellow man, plunder their fellow man, see to it that others' children are eating what they think is best, etc. And lets not forget security. God forbid we live in a country where every outcome isn't guaranteed to be a positive one from cradle to grave.

Save us from ourselves? I think not. Rule us like cattle is more like it. And cattle don't need money do they? After all, the rancher is the only one who makes decision on behalf of his herd. Our rancher/ owner has a name... Uncle Scam.

0

pitpoodle 4 years ago

Like I said before, so, how's that stimulus plan working for you?

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

The stimulus is working just great. Thanks for asking. This just in from the CBO, the independent, non-partisan congressional watchdog. Last week, it reported the stimulus package put 1.4 - 3.6 million people to work between July and September. It also boosted national output 1.4% - 4.1% during that time. While the umemployment is still a high 9.8%, the CBO concluded it would be as high as 11.6% w/out the stimulus. The economy grew 2.5% in the last quarter. W/out the stimulus, the economy would still be sinking.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years ago

Well, I wouldn't say the stimulus was working great, but it appears to be working better than Bush's tax cuts.

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

The stimulus package was not meant to be, nor could it ever be, the magic bullet to fix the whole economy. It was meant to stop the bleeding and try to stabilize the economy, which it seems to have accomplished. By no means are we out of the woods yet, but I think the worst is behind us. As for the extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, there is no proof that they would help the economy. If somebody could show facts that say otherwise, I would throw my support behind the extension. If the GOP would support, say, military spending cuts to pay for the Bush tax cut extension on the wealthy, maybe it would be more palatable to more people. But the fact that the GOP holds up unemployment extensions because they are unpaid for, yet supports extending tax cuts for the wealthy that just jack up the deficit is the ultimate hypocracy. If they were truly supportive of deficit reduction, they would just let all the tax cuts expire. The reason they were set to expire in the first place was because they were upaid for the first time. Remember, back in the good old days, when, according to VP Cheney, "deficits don't matter". It was the first time in our nation's history that we have gone to war and not raise taxes to pay for it. Former treasury Paul O'Neill lost his job when he warned Bush/Cheney that the looming budget deficits ($500 billion alone in 2002) posed a significant threat to the economy. Prez Bush also balked at O'Neill's aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after the Enron, etc. scandal. He was fired soon after.

0

sledneck 4 years ago

If the stimulus cost $ 1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) and it provided 3,000,000 jobs thats $ 333,333 / per job.

If the stimulus Trout is referring to cost $ 500,000,000,000 (half a trillion) and put 3 million people to work thats $166, 666 / per job.

If the stimulus cost $1,000,000,000,000 (one trillion) but only put 1.5 million people back to work (the lower end of the CBO range) (you know, the "non-partisan congressional watchdog") thats $666,666 / job.

Sounds like a typical "government success story" to me.

If Uncle Scam painted "USA" on the back of a rooster some folks would believe the government made the sun rise when they heard the "USA Rooster" crow.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years ago

Well, more than half the stimulus was tax cuts so if it didn't work then that just goes to show that tax cuts is a very ineffective way of creating jobs or preventing jobs from being lost.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

Shovel ready. 2012 can't come fast enough where the real stimulus will take hold, the ouster of the Marxist regime.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

Here Troutguy, the proof.

"The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis." http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Being that this report is from 1996 it can't be dismissed by the left as being influenced by anti-Obama politics, which I am all for personally.

0

JLM 4 years ago

Reality is a demanding handmaiden.

The Stimulus was justified as the ONLY means of avoiding unemployment in excess of 8%.

Did not work, did not even come close and today nobody is willing to say they thought it was ever going to work. It was a cynical lie used to deploy a cynical plan --- the funding of every liberal wet dream ever envisioned.

Increasing the amount of capital in our economy flowing to the government whose wisdom and judgment brought us the Stimulus is the most ill advised bit of public policy imaginable.

Decreasing the amount of capital in the segment of the economy which has the biggest impact on job creation in a time of incredibly high unemployment and virtually no net job creation is equally ill advised.

The administration's attempt to reduce this to class warfare and political spoils has nothing to do with basic economic theory or practice or reality.

This is the intellectual equivalent of "bleeding" a patient with worms to improve their health.

This administration is simply incompetent as proven only by their own results. This is no longer a matter of partisan politics or competing visions of governing philosophy --- this is about fundamental competence. And they are not competent.

0

JLM 4 years ago

You can believe me when I say that the way out of this mess is the repeal of DADT. If gay people are allowed to serve openly in the military, the economy will turn around immediately and job creation will shoot through the roof.

Somebody needs to tell the President --- if you can find the guy either in India, Korea, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Hawaii or on the golf course --- that as he said: Jobs is job no 1.

It might also be worthy to share with him that Obamacare does not seem to be working just yet.

Competence --- they don't have it.

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

See, some more 'proof' The first Reagan tax cut, known as the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) was the biggest tax cut in American history at the time. ERTA slashed federal revenues by $38 billion the 1st year, $91 billion the second year, and $139 billion the 3rd year. When deficits began to rise almost immediately, Reagan raised taxes the next year, 1982, and again in 1984 and 1987, eroding most of the ERTA reductions. During Reagan's 8 years in office, he cut taxes 4 times. In contrast, he increased taxes 11 times, trying to battle budget deficits the tax cuts caused. With this tax cut/ tax increase mix, the Reagan administration oversaw strong job growth, around 16 million jobs. When Bush I was elected, he uttered the famous quote "read my lips. No new taxes". 14 months later, he raised taxes, realizing that budget deficits were rearing their ugly head again. Clinton inherited an annual $300 Billlion deficit. He cut Govt spending by $247 billion and raised taxes on the top earners. That, and later tax cuts, resulted in a budget surplus in 1998. Job growth under Clinton was a little higher than Reagan's, coming in at 19 million jobs. Bush II came to office , cut taxes twice in '01 & '03, which wiped out any surpluses and immediately ran up budget deficits. Job creation this time was non-existent. "Deficits don't matter" - VP Dick Cheney. By the time Obama took office, he was looking at a one year deficit of $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. So, history seems to show that we enjoyed the best job growth under administrations that were willing to both raise and lower taxes in needed sectors. There is no evidence that tax cuts alone create jobs and raise revenues. If the Bush II tax cuts actually created jobs and dropped the deficit, I would be a big supporter. But they didn't. Job creation was stagnant and deficits soared after these tax cuts. They've been on the books for 10 years. Where's the jobs?

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

And here's some more interesting reading from Bernard Condon, business writer at the Associated Press, who spells out the facts and myths of the debate over extending the Bush tax cuts. Pretty interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/04/in-tax-showdown-myths-spr_n_792024.html

0

JLM 4 years ago

We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The US Congress spends (appropriates) way too much money.

Cutting taxes does work to spur revenues but deficits are only reduced if spending is simultaneously constrained.

In the last 30 years, we have never actually cut spending --- we have only reduced the rate of SPENDING GROWTH.

The fictitious Clinton surpluses (fictitious because they do not include inter- and intra-governmental charges, you accountants out there understand this --- note that National Debt never went down BTW) were the product of the Republican Congress' control of spending while picking the last remaining low hanging fruit from the Reagan era tax cuts.

0

JLM 4 years ago

It is illuminating to know that President Dwight D Eisenhower balanced 8 straight budgets --- that means $0 deficit --- while simultaneously keeping us out of war, initiating the construction of the Interstate Highway system and building the Nation's nuclear arsenal.

How did he do it?

He simply balanced revenues and expenditures and did not allow any sacred cows. This savvy General cut defense spending while building the nuclear arsenal.

He applied priorities.

The problem today is that nobody in this Administration or, to be fair, the US Congress possesses the raw competence or the inclination to make such a thing happen.

0

Clearsky 4 years ago

Bill Clinton left office with not only a balanced budget but with a surplus, then the Republican spend and cut tax on the rich came in and bankrupted our country.

0

JLM 4 years ago

@clear, could you please show me the reduction in National Debt that was created by the fictitious Clinton surpluses? If he delivered a surplus, would not the National Debt have declined as the surplus was applied to the National Debt?

The Clinton surpluses are an urban legend because the math does not take into account inter- and intra-governmental expenditures.

Any --- any --- improvement in the Clinton financial performance was only attributable to the Gingrich Congress and its willingness to reduce the rate of GROWTH of spending, not the actual amount of spending.

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. Deal with it.

0

trump_suit 4 years ago

Actually, Clinton did in fact deliver a balanced budget. Unfortunately, he did it by rolling the social security excess into the general fund numbers. It was essentially balanced by using smoke and mirrors.

The truly unfortunate part is how both Bush and Obama have started from the already nebulous starting point and have managed to create a deficit that is a serious problem.

Again, lets talk cuts, what do you propose we cut.

  1. Military
  2. Social Security 3 Medicare/Medicaid 4.Interest expense (Can't cut this one, it just gets bigger)

Cut every other item completely out of the Federal Budget and we still have a serious problem, What gets cut?

0

sledneck 4 years ago

Scott, Call it however you want. $333,333 / job is the reality. Helen Keller could see that as a screw-up. Why can't you? I think you see it in your heart but are too dishonest to admit it to yourself.

Our government is a failure and those who defend it are fools. They defend it, in large part, because it plunders for them from their neighbors. Some clearly see that and excuse it; in fact they like it. Others see nothing and their ignorance is their bliss. Which are you?

"There are none more blind than those who WILL not see."

0

Scott Wedel 4 years ago

Sled, So, by your own data, it took $166,666 in spending and $166,666 in tax cuts for the stimulus to create a job. So, assuming your data is accurate, then neither spending or tax cuts is effective at creating jobs.

So then the Bush tax cuts are certainly not worth it and should not be renewed. We do that, stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan then we are in the ballpark of a balanced budget.

The reason Clinton's surpluses do not "show up" in the national debt is probably related to why national debt numbers show that it increased 10% during Eisenhower's presidency. And the national debt increased by $7B in Clinton's last year in office while it generally increased $500 billion during Bush W.

I am fine with the idea that Washington needs to pay for whatever they approve and that will tend to decrease the size of the federal budget. I am just dismayed by the hypocrisy of rejecting $67B of extending unemployment insurance because it is not paid for, but approving $4T (at $400B a year) tax cuts because it might be good for the economy.

If you would rail against Republican deficits as much as you rail against Democratic deficits then I would probably end up agreeing with you fairly often.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

@trout

You are quoting such laureate specialists as Katy Couric and the Huffpo, nice.

Even so, you should take a look at the job creation from POTUS to POTUS and you can see how well Obama is doing.

I think I will trust the Economists on tax increases and job creation/tax revenue collection not Katy, what magazines do you read, Couric. I happened to run and own a business during the Carter and Reagan years and I lived the moment. So the manipulation of the facts by your left wing sources can't change my life experience of that period. Reagan saved the Country from doom and gloom and people went back to work which created increased tax revenues. With all the wasted tax money of Obama's stimulus plans our unemployement rate continues to soar and Bernanke said yesterday that it will be this way for years to come, well I say get rid of this Administration and stop the spending spree.

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

See, Do you trust the economists who contributed to the Wikipedia piece on the Bush administration? I never realized Wikipedia was another part of the left wing conspiracy to undermine the GOP. How about the Wikipedia piece about Presidential job creation? Another left wing conspiracy?
Ok, time to turn the tables. Please show me a credible source that can show Couric, Wikipedia, and the rest of my sources are lying and/or wrong. Love to see what you come up with. Please show me a reputable economist that can show nothing but tax cuts and spending cuts will grow the economy. Please show me how the Bush tax cuts in '01 & 03 stimulated the economy and created jobs. The Bush Administration created half the jobs in 8 years that the Carter Administration did in 4. Please show me a credible source that disputes that from Dec 2007-Dec 2008, Our country lost 3.6 million jobs. This is just a few years after these tax cuts that, according to you, create jobs. Please show me a credible source that disputes the unemployment rate under Bush. Jan 2001 it was 4.2%. Jan 2009 it was 7.8%. That's a 3.6% increase in unemployment. Please show me a credible source that can dispute the piece written Mr. Condin in Huffpost regarding extending Bush tax cuts. Just because you say Couric et all is wrong, doesn't make it so. Your sources please.

0

sledneck 4 years ago

Scott, There are no "republican" or "democrat" deficits. All deficits are AMERICAN deficits. The morons who bankrupted us go home (or to Tahiti) and leave all us with the debt from both republican and democrat deficits (if you want to call deficits partisan) Never once have I excused a deficit due to whence or from whom it came. Contrarily, I read/hear many of you doing it all the time. "My presidents reckless spending can be excused bnecause...) PLEASE!

The idea behind lower taxes is that it creates incentive. Potential for profit is a strong motivator, in fact it's the ONLY significant motivator.

Higher taxerates kill the profit motive which kills jobs which reduces revenue which exacerbates deficits which increases debt which raises interest payments which adds to the debt which makes less funds available for all the things socialists want in the first place.

The bottom line is that if the tree huggin, watermelon, socialists want to continue to plunder the wealth of the productive wing of society they had better damn well realize that there has to in fact BE a productive wing for them to plunder. And they had better realize it pretty freakin fast; before they have carved up and devoured the last feather of the goose that is laying all the gold eggs.

You still didn't answer my question so I will assume the truth is too much for you and I will ask another instead... Which would have the most negative ramifications for America: 1. If everyone on unemployment for 99 weeks packed up and moved to the Bahamas? or 2. If everyone who you and Obama calls "rich" packed up and moved to the Bahamas?

Here's a lightening round bonus question... Which of those groups do you think is getting ready to pack its' bags?

0

seeuski 4 years ago

Troutguy, How old are you? You are claiming Carter created jobs? LOL!!!!!!! You must have been either a child or unborn during those times to be making those crazy claims.

Again, go and review your material and you will have your answers about job creation. But for the record, are you claiming that the jobless rate of 4.5% did not occur during Bush's tenure? Are you going to claim that your love, Obama, created or saved somewhere between 1 and 3.5 million jobs depending on which bozo Dem is being quoted? All the while our unemployment rate continues to climb, when do people realize they are being lied to? This is the purposeful destruction of our economy as taught by Cloward and Piven at Columbia where guess who attended college? Obama. Oh, and there is some interesting revelations about Obama's governance coming out through wikileaks. Anyway, the problem here is that we are arguing over Capitalism and Marxism and I am a Capitalist and not the Mao believer we have in the White House. Economic prosperity has always come from freedom/Capitalism not Marxism/Fascism/Socialism etc, only death and gloom come from those ideals.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

Hey Troutguy, For a good look at the failure of Socialism take a look at what Jamaica went through under Manley's socialist transformation and the death and destruction that ensued. Bush was not around either.

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

I said that unemployment when Bush took office was at 4.2%. When he left office, it was at 7.8%. Somewhere in there it did hit 4.5%, since 4.5 is greater than 4.2 and less than 7.8. As for the Carter Administration, look it up. 10.3 million jobs added between 1977-1981. (Yes, I was alive). You would have read that had you actually looked at the links you asked me to provide. Instead you just dismissed them because 2 of them come from sources you do not trust. Again, what's your feelings about info from Wikipedia? Not trustworthy? Please do tell. According thee The CBO, jobs saved or created by the Stimulus package were between 1.4 and 3.6 million jobs. Unemployment would be between 10.4 - 11.6 % if not enacted. Around 40% of the Stimulus package was tax cuts. Just a few facts to get in the way of your recycled talking points. Oh, by the way, I'm still waiting for you to reveal your sources to counter my previous posts.
Please show your sources that counter the fact that we lost 3.6 million jobs in Bush's last year as President, all while both his tax cuts were in place.
Please show me your sources that refute the fact that Reagan raised taxes 11 times, vs. cut them 4 times. Please show me your sources that refute the fact that our national debt went from $144 billion - 1 trillion dollars in the 8 years under Bush. How could that have happened when those tax cuts were in place. Tax cuts fix all, no? Sources, See. Let's see your sources.

0

sledneck 4 years ago

I hear a lot of people blaming capitalism for the recession we are currently in. They are mistaken. Here is why:

  1. Not one of the people griping about capitalism has ever experienced capitalism; since before most of us were born the government has distorted capitalism and today it is not practiced anywhere on the globe... except on black markets.

  2. Their motives are not altruistic; they have an ax to grind with capitalism, not because it wronged them but because it reveals their inability or unwillingness to compete in a dog-eat-dog world. Capitalism rewards those who are smarter and less lazy and they hate that.

  3. Despite all the griping about capitalism not one person has EVER EVER EVER came up with an alternative that exceeds it. Pointing out imperfection and feigning righteous indignation is easy but "it takes money to buy whiskey". Any system on this earth, practiced by imperfect beings (which we are... sorry if your mamma didn't tell you) is going to have flaws. But no other system has fed, clothed, sheltered, healed, transported, empowered and relieved the general burdens of life from more people than capitalism.

  4. If we were living under the system many of them seem to prefer we would not be in a recession. That does not mean things would be better than they are here and now; on the contrary, it simply means this would be the norm for the economy thus they would not know it as a recession, rather, they would know it as NORMAL.

The real "American Greed" is the envy that has infected so many Americans. And it has frozen them in their tracks like an athelete whos' opponent then runs right past them to score. Instead of getting up running every morning with a notion of making a better life for their family they wait around to be fed... like cattle. Pitiful.

Whoever you are YOU ARE WHERE YOU ARE TODAY BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN PAST DECISIONS, not because someone else isn't paying enough taxes.

0

pitpoodle 4 years ago

Trout, you are taking statistics and spinning them to make the point you want. Meanwhile, your assumptions are way off. For example, you do not have any idea or proof that without the Obama stimulus package things would have been worse. No amount of wishful thinking will make it a fact that things are better with incredible government spending and expansion. The US and Colorado economy is bad and government "help" has made it worse --- not better. You might as well face it.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years ago

Pitpoodle, At least Troutguy has conventional economic theory to suggest that the stimulus stopped things from being worse.

It appears you avoid the pitfall of providing statistics and spinning them to make a point because you provide no facts, only opinions. What evidence is there that the stimulus made things worse?

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

I'm taking stats and spinning them to make my point? Really? How am I 'spinning' the facts? I do have proof that w/out the Stimulus, both the economy and unemployment would be worse. It's called the Congressional Budget Office, which just happens to be non-partisan. Since you haven't read my previous posts, I'll write it again. The stimulus has created or saved 1.4 -3.6 million jobs. Unemployment would be between 10.6 - 11.4 %. Around 40% of the Stimulus was tax cuts. Please show me your sources that says I'm wrong instead of just saying I'm wrong with nothing to back it up. Sources. Come on, Poodle, lets see your sources that prove that what I've culled from the CBO website is wrong. Put your money where your mouth is and back up what you say.

0

pitpoodle 4 years ago

There is a fatal flaw in your argument and with your so-called facts. You make the assumption that the job numbers used by the CBO are correct. They aren't. The Obama administration predicted that the $787 billion stimulus package would create 3.6 million jobs. It didn’t. With all the job creation-reporting-errors the Obama administration has no idea how many jobs, if any, have been saved or created. Nor does any one else know. The reason is, the Obama administration changed the way stimulus jobs were counted.

The Office of Management and Budget (director Peter Orszag at the time) made the decision to include (in the count) jobs that already existed. If a person worked at a company before the stimulus $ came in to play, and a project within the company took stimulus money, all of the jobs within that company were counted as jobs saved or created. The new counting system counted every job that was funded using stimulus money whether it existed before the stimulus bill or not, even jobs that were in no danger of being eliminated were counted under the new OMB counting system. You can’t claim just because the Congressional Budget Office is non partisan that they are using accurate numbers. The numbers are still wrong and It is still a bogus argument. The Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog group, stated that there are “significant issues to be addressed” in the accuracy of jobs created reports and cited errors with job number in non- existent congressional districts for example. The Wall Street Journal reported errors that have inflated the total number of jobs attributed to the stimulus. When Obama himself claimed that the stimulus package “saved or created” jobs, news organizations found huge exaggerations in the reported data. Many of the jobs reportedly created do not exist or cannot be accounted for. It appears that more than ten percent of the jobs the Obama administration has claimed were created or saved by the $787 billion stimulus package are doubtful or imaginary, according to reports compiled from eleven major newspapers and the Associated Press. Yeah, really, I stand by my statement: There is no proof that it helped the economy and no proof that any significant number of private sector permanent jobs were created and your "facts" leave a lot to be desired.

Scott W the Keynesian conventional economic theory you espouse is no guarantee that it stopped things from getting worse. I am not a Keynesian fan at all.

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

To begin with, the GAO report you are referring to is from October, 2009. So, it's kind of out of date, no? Second, the GAO report is covering the Obama administration's numbers of 640,000 jobs saved or created up to that point. It is not referring to the CBO's reported estimate of 1.4 - 3.6 million jobs saved or created, which came out the end of last month and covers the life of the Stimulus itself. You need to differentiate the two, don't you think? I never referred to the Obama adiministrations numbers of 640,000, or any number put out by them for that matter. Even so, regarding Obama's numbers, the GAO states " the numbers are innacccurate and provides scenarios where both understating and overstating the figures may have occurred". So, while some numbers are inflated, others are on the low side. (again, these are about Obama's numbers, not the CBO) The 10% of the jobs claims you say are doubtful or imaginary are, to quote the GAO again, "recipients of stimulus dollars failed to submit query reports last month". That means that 10% of the recipients of Stimulus in the month of October failed to turn in their paperwork. That's just one month, not the life of the Stimulus.
So, if you can find a credible source that disputes the findings of the CBO, I'd be more than interested to hear them.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

I guess Troutguy conveniently forgets that when the CBO first scored Obamacare it showed that the new laws would increase health care costs and then Obama had Doug Elmendorf, the CBO Director, frog walked into his office and poof, the numbers suddenly reversed and we were lied to as history now proves the original CBO estimate was conservative at best. So Troutguy wanting us to accept this Obama controlled CBO on anything is funny.

Here are the unemployment records from 1990 to the present, notice how under Clinton it wasn't until the 1994 Congressional defeat by the Repubs that the unemployment rates went down by any real noticeable amount, and that was while Clinton triangulated and compromised on spending with the newly Conservative Congress. Blame lower taxes if you want Troutguy, but that is Socialist hogwash.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 1990 5.4 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.7 5.9 5.9 6.2 6.3
1991 6.4 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.3
1992 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.3 7.4 7.4
1993 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 6.9 6.8 6.7 6.8 6.6 6.5
1994 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5
1995 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.6 5.6
1996 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.4 5.4
1997 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7
1998 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4
1999 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.1 4.0
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.110.010.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.8 Quoted from the BLS:

Spin it all you want but reality is on the side of truth. Spreading the wealth has never worked, creating jobs happens when business's aren't overly burdened by high taxes. The current compromise by Obama on the tax rate extensions pretty much slams the door on your arguments.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

I would also point out that the chart shows the 2003 tax cuts on the rich created an awful lot of jobs and it was the housing bubble that put us in this mess which was created by the Liberals in Congress who gave Fannie/Freddie the money to spread the wealth to those who would not otherwise qualify for loans. Reality.

0

MrTaiChi 4 years ago

Today I am a cynic. Tomorrow I may be filled with the Christmas spirit. I hope so.

I have noted over these years that both the left and the right commentators on this blog give little weight to historic events as affecting the economy, preferring to blame the sitting president absolutely for hard times. Clinton came to office off a recession that Bush senior presided over and rode the wave of recovery and the retail stimulus of the silicon/internet revolution of the 1990s. The nosedive of the Bush 2d economy was underway when he took office and really tanked when 19 sons of bitches shook the country down to its socks. Anybody over 18 with average education knew that when the country goes to war, you can forget fiscal responsibility. And the Democrats don't get a free ride on that. It was their Congress that approved the Bush administration's actions by funding them.

What is scary is that it is becoming pretty obvious that the job of President is too big for any of the people we have had filling it, even someone with a resume' like Bush #1. Now we are realizing that our economic future will be dictated by powers beyond our control across the oceans.

Here's a news item that the Pilot missed: There will be no Christmas for children this year, as Santa's reindeer have been suspended from service for bullying Rudolf. They laughed at him and called him names. They wouldn't let him join in reindeer games. Although this behavior was committed some time in the past, the nanny state thought police have decided that it was too egregious to forgive without intervention to assure that it would never happen again.

I usually feel better after I watch the 1951 production of Scrooge, starring Alistair Sim. If there is hope for his spirit, maybe for mine too. Merry Christmas to my friends and antagonists in the Yampa Valley.

0

housepoor 4 years ago

See, so it was the tax cuts and not the housing bubble that created those $50 hr jobs banging nails?

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/2006_40-49/2006-46/pdf/40-42_646_rich.pdf

0

pitpoodle 4 years ago

Trout, you are not interested to hear any arguments that are opposed to your hero Obama's handling of the economy. You think his policies have created jobs? Near 10% unemployment does not prove that. Do you believe in, "the proof is in the pudding"? He has been a disaster for all of us. Admit it or maybe you just don't like pudding. Mr. Chi, your comments are very creative and funny. Thanks.

0

trump_suit 4 years ago

So tell us Pit/See.

How many jobs a month were we losing in Oct/Nov/Dec 2008? The Bush Year. How many jobs in Jan/Feb/Mar 2009? Apr/May/Jun 2009

etc until now. Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2000 249 121 472 286 225 -46 163 3 122 -11 231 138
2001 -16 61 -30 -281 -44 -128 -125 -160 -244 -325 -292 -178
2002 -132 -147 -24 -85 -7 45 -97 -16 -55 126 8 -156
2003 83 -158 -212 -49 -6 -2 25 -42 103 203 18 124
2004 150 43 338 250 310 81 47 121 160 351 64 132
2005 136 240 142 360 169 246 369 195 63 84 334 158
2006 262 326 304 174 31 69 232 141 100 43 201 177
2007 194 104 239 92 149 55 -20 -71 52 86 128 70
2008 -10 -50 -33 -149 -231 -193 -210 -334 -458 -554 -728 -673
2009 -779 -726 -753 -528(C) -387(C) -515(C) -346(C) -212(C) -225 -224 64 -109
2010 14 39 208 313 432 -175 -66 -1 -24 172(P) 39(P)
C : corrected

Here is the link for the above chart from the Bureau of Labor to help you: http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=CES0000000001&output_view=net_1mth

Compare the figures and you will find that whatever the reason, the extreme job losses Started during the end of the Bush administration and continued deep into 2009. 2010 has been weak but definitely better than 2008/2009. Using these actual job numbers it can be surmised that the stimulus did in fact help stop the horrendous job loss and helped to stabilize the economy.

Reality see. Can't wait to see how you spin these numbers or will you even look at them?

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

Don't ever remember saying Obama was my hero. Your words, not mine. Sorry to point out in the last post that you had the facts wrong regarding the GAO and the Obama Administrations exagerated numbers......from last year. I find it ironic that you claim the CBO's numbers are wrong by quoting anonther Govt watchdog (nice try cherry picking certain parts of it and leaving out the parts that don't agree with your argument, such as the GAO stating that, yes , there are overinflated numbers coming out of the Obama adminnistration, but some numbers are low too. Perhaps just an oversight on your part, eh?). Again, the GAO was looking at numbers put out by the Obama administration, not numbers put out by the CBO. Whoops. Next time you may want to double check your 'facts' before you put them out there. Kind of like placing the blame on any future hikes in health insurance costs w/out having any facts to back that up. So, I'm looking forward to seeing if you can find a credible source that claims the CBO's numbers are wrong.

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

See, nice numbers there. You claim the '03 tax cuts created lots o' jobs. It took almost 3 years for the unemloyment numbers to drop 1 percentage point after the second roun of tax cuts. What happened to the '01 tax cuts. Why did unemployment go up from 4.2% when Bush took office to 6% at the end of 2002? Why didn't those first round of tax cuts create jobs and stimulate the economy? Your numbers also point to the big picture. Unemployment was 4.2% when Bush took office. It was 7.8% when he left office. Please explain how those tax cuts created jobs again?
Did you ever find out how many jobs were created when the Carter Administration was in charge? Last I checked you sccoffed at the 10+ million jobs, yet failed to prove those numbers wrong. What about the fact that conservative hero Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his two terms, and yet he oversaw huge job growth. How ever did that happen?

0

pitpoodle 4 years ago

Jeez, at least talk apples vs apples. Your thesis is that job loss at the end of Bush's term was high. OK. But after allocating $787 billion ($275 billion for specific to job creation) in February 2010, unemployment has not really improved. In November 2010, we have an unemployment rate of 9.8%, despite job growth in some sectors. I am sorry but that says to me it is a failed program that has not stopped the horrendous job loss nor did it serve to stabilize the economy. A major problem with this administration is that companies do not know what shoe will drop next by Mr. Obama, therefore, few companies are willing to hire in this unstable economy magnified by unstable decisions. Polls show that CEOs do not anticipate hiring any new employees in the next year. Businesses are uncertain whether or not they can afford to hire new employees with threats of massive change, like the cap and trade bill. If the Bush tax cuts are not extended, it will be the largest tax hike in history on business owners and unemployment levels are expected to increase even further. To boost hiring, we need to promote policies that cut taxes and regulations on job creators. I guess my spin on this is: I do not really know what you think your point is. It defies logical sense.

0

trump_suit 4 years ago

Pitpoodle

"I am sorry but that says to me it is a failed program that has not stopped the horrendous job loss nor did it serve to stabilize the economy."

Did you actually look at the job loss numbers? Look closely again please. Job loss numbers in 2008/09 were horrendous losing over 500,000 jobs a month. After the stimulus went into effect in the 2nd quarter of 2009, they losses began to diminish and by 2010 the economy actually started creating jobs instead of continuing to lose them

I understand that you are all tied up with the 8% thing, OK so Obama's math was a little fuzzy and he was overly optimistic in trying to sell the package. Guilty as charged.

However, if you look at the actual jobs created./lost we are in a much better position even if the problem was larger and deeper than anticipated. Are we out of the woods? Absolutely not, but the major indicators seem to be moving in the right direction.

Factory orders, inventory levels, projected sales, actual sales are all up over the last 6 months. The economy has far to go and there are hard times still to come but to claim the stimulus was "a failed program" is simply not true.

PS. Tax rates in America are at the lowest rate in history. What are you going to cut? Lets have some specifics please.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years ago

Trout and Trump,

Well explained. The following are the answers from pit, seeuski, etc.

http://www.forgottenfantasy.com/crickets.wav

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

Well said, Trump. Poodle, your right to say companies are waiting for the economy to recover before they start spending money. That's the vicious cycle we are in. Companies cut costs and jobs, people slow their spending because they lost their jobs, so companies cut more costs and jobs. And on and on it goes. But you're wrong when you say it has to do with their tax rates. Consider these numbers: -Non financial S&P 500 companies are sitting on $837 billion in cash and short term investments. This is not only a record, but is also up 26%, from $655 billion just a year ago. -Companies are holding cash equal to 10% of their total value, up from normal levels. Since 1999, companies held cash equal to 6.6% of their value. So, companies have the money. Their just afraid of having another credit freeze like we had in 2007, so they are sitting on the cash and waiting for better times. This is also why extending unemployment benefits are crucial to overall economy right now. This money is spent on necessities such as food, rent, gas for the car, heating bills, etc., etc. Stores sell more stuff, need another body to help stock the shelves, and hire a few people. And a few more jobs are created. Multiply that by a million stores, and we've got serious job growth. That is the cycle we need to get back to. (I know, I know, it's a very simplistic example, but it gets the point accross)

0

seeuski 4 years ago

The Nancy Pelosi economics system as described by Troutguy: For every dollar spent on unemployment we get 2 dollars back, "the biggest bang for the buck" theory. Awesome.

I think I'll go on unemployment so I can contribute to the stimulus of the economy.

And businesses are not holding on to their money because of credit freezes, it's because of the uncertainty of what Obama's new laws and tax schemes will impose on the bottom line, I have heard this from local business owners regarding the new health care laws for one. Can't wait for the defense statement on these truths.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

421,000 new unemployment claims last week and these guys want to raise taxes on businesses, they never heard of the Laffer curve. And the Socialists say:

0

trump_suit 4 years ago

What gets cut See. The current budget is not sustainable, so what gets cut out of it?

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

See Can you show me the figures that show unemployment funds don't help the economy? Please? Sources?? Do you really believe that the majority of people on unemployment want to be in that position? Since Fortune 500 companies are sitting on more cash than ever, how is the existing tax rates affecting them. Since the tax cuts were originally intended to expire, shouldn't companies be prepared for them to expire? By supporting the extention of Bush's tax cuts, you are saying budget defecits don't matter. Sure, let's borrow billions more from China to pay for these extensions. FYI, in December 2008, Bush's last month in office, new unemployyment claims were 573,000. Tax cuts create jobs how? Do you have any proof, other than talking to your friends that own businesses in town, that the Obama plan is behind health insurance rate increases? According to a recent release from the Colorado Division of Insurance, regulators say that blaming steep increases on health care reform are a convenient myth. "The impact of new benefits amount to a 5% increase for some small group new policies, but topped out at 1.2% in large-group renewals. The real driver of big insurance hikes remains high inflation for hospital care, doctor fees, new medical devices and increased testing". From Ron Zwerin of the Colorado Hospital Association "Gross hospital charges in Colorado rose an average of 7% in the last year. Top reasons include and aging work force with more illnnesses, expensive new technology and replacement of aging equipment, pharmacy costs and the use of costly emergency room visits for routine care". One example of insurance overhaul is the ability to keep kids on the parents plan until age 26. Colorado insurers filed documents asking for increases of zero -- 0.4% for covering children to age 26. Small-group insurers (companies up to 50 employees), say allowing pre-existing conditions for kids under 19 would cost them nothing. Yet insurance companies are asking for annual premium increases up to 30%. P.S. See, Just wondering how your coming along finding the "true' number of jobs created under the Carter Administration. You laugh at the numbers I produce, but fail to back up your claims. Again.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

You two guys have no clue what is going down here, you want to play the spy vs spy game, show me yours then I'll show you some of mine, while our current POTUS is purposely crashing our economy. Revisionism is great if you are a part of the revolution to complete the "fundamental change" we are going through.

I would cut your big Government and spread the wealth schemes so drastically trump that you're hair would catch fire. I would immediately repeal Obamacare, I would shut down much of the big Communist Unions power, freeing up things like our Education system to actually do what they are supposed to do, teach with good Teachers. I would shut down Fannie and Freddie and end that spigot of tax dollars, I would shut the FED and audit the books to see what has been going on all these years and where are our trillions that they printed over time. I would give power back to the people and the communities where real good does actually happen during bad times because the Federal Government is nothing but a power hungry political machine taking our tax money and doing who knows what with it. This Country is purposely being torn apart at the seems by the Progressive revolutionaries who are in power in DC and we are the sheep arguing over tax rates through history when this whole situation has been planned for years. How do you think that days after Obama took office a 2,000 or so page stimulus bill showed up? Do you know who wrote it? How about the Obamacare bill? Pelosi said we would have to pass it to know what is in it, who wrote it then? It was the Tides Foundation, a George Soros funded Progressive group whose aim is to transform the USA into a globally governed, defanged former Superpower.

I am willing to concede this taxation argument to nowhere and watch and see if your predictions come true, higher taxes fix the deficit. Because if you think that Liberal Progressives will pay down the deficit with the imaginary 800 billion dollars that will never be collected then I have waterfront land in Nevada for you. I say that the economy will worsen and the Libs will increase spending because that is the plan. Goodnight Gents.

0

ybul 4 years ago

Hey it looks like the FDA will add 4000 inspectors who can come out believe I am doing something wrong and then shut me down. just great look at what our country is becoming and stop the bickering and stand up.

Kangaroo courts for violators

Once an FDA inspection occurs, if the government believes the food grower is producing anything that might pose a risk to the public (and note carefully that "belief" is the only thing required, not actual scientific evidence of harm), that food grower is then "suspended" from producing food.

After that, they get dragged into a kangaroo FDA court where a panel of FDA officials then decides their fate. This takes place with no due process, no attorney, no Constitutional protections and no rights whatsoever. This is, in every sense, a "King's court" where the King can simply decide that you're guilty and put you out of business.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030672_Food_Safety_bill_FDA.html#ixzz17gBBTy7h

0

seeuski 4 years ago

ybul, These new laws just passed in the last couple of days which give the FEDS more power over our food supply must be of grave concern to you John, this is all part of the big plan to control every aspect of our lives. They will have control over all industry and there will be no more private sector, freedom was a dream we once new.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

This statement from the above link says it all.

"By the way, just for the record, I am appalled at the lack of action on this item by some so-called "health freedom" organizations which appear to be doing absolutely nothing to rally opposition to this bill."

The reason is they are a part of this Progressive movement for total power that is under way, they never did give a damn about "health freedom" or farmers/ranchers freedom, just power. You want action? Join a Tea Party and get involved, we can win against this tyranny, we have done much already.

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

See, Why do you avoid any type of reasonable debate? All you have is your drive-by rhetoric. You throw your thoughts out there, others come back with a rebuttal, and you ignore them and move on to your next emtpy fear filled thoughts. You claim Obama's health care overhaul is causing your local business owner friends to think twice before hiring, yet you offer no facts to back up that claim. I quote both the Colorado Division of Insurance and the Colorado Hospital Association, who probably know a little more about the healthcare overhaul than any of us, and you just ignore it. You claim that your local business owner friends can't hire because of the uncertaintly with the tax cut extensions. But these tax cuts were set to expire this year after 7&9 years respectively. How is that uncertain? They were set to expire. How can they not plan for that? Republicans planned on having these tax cuts expire. So now that they are set to expire, how can you blame Dems for a tax increase? Since Republicans set these tax cuts to expire in the first place, is it not their fault taxes are set to go up at the end of the year?
You got nothin'. Empty Rhetoric. Useless, fear-based talking points. No facts, no credible sources. Nothin'. Perfect example #1: "How old are you? You are claiming Carter created jobs? LOL!!!!!! You must be a child or unborn during those time to be making those crazy claims". And that's it. No proof that I'm wrong. Just laugh it off and move on. Until you can back up your claims, your crediblity in always going to be in question. It's much easier to say something is wrong than it is to actually prove it. Just to help you out, I'll re-post the link from Wikipedia about Presidential job creation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_cre...

0

Troutguy 4 years ago

And what about your claim of this 'Progressive move for total power that is underway?' Is this not what the GOP is all about too? Why else would they filibuster things like The START treaty? Why would they block Democratic legislation that would provide medical care for 9/11 first responders? They just can't bring themselves to vote for any bill put forward by a Democrat because it may actually help our nation, but would hurt their re-election if they can't paint the Dems as failures. It's a sick game that is being played with all of our lives just so one party can try to make the other look bad. Gothca politics is what its' all about. It's all about power control from both sides, so your claim that it's just a Democat thing is absurd.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years ago

Trout.......Word.

I'm no debate expert, but I'd have to say Trout just gave Seeuski a beat down of epic proportions. If it were a baseball game, the fat lady would have sung her final notes, and the stadium would be emptying. It's like Katy Couric vs. Sarah Palin.

Only problem is, Seeuski has no time for fact and reason. He's like his favorite news outlet; it's all about who can control the message best, not who is right. Forget the facts, just keep the millionaires & billionaires taxes from being raised. Just call it Socialism, Marxism, and Fascism enough, and the little people who they care less about, will vote them into office. Sell the scare tactics and fear enough, and the flock will listen. Facts don't matter much.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

As I thought troutguy, you have no answers to the truth. Time wasted as usual with progressives who think we are blind, no more.

0

ybul 4 years ago

--And what about your claim of this 'Progressive move for total power that is underway?' Is this not what the GOP is all about too?--

Yep they are darn near one and the same. The demopublicans are the party of the corporation. They put forth legislation and claim it is here to help us, with catchy names like the food safety modernization act and yet those bill simply help to further consolidate power within whichever industry that is.

Open up real debate from both sides as both are full of crap. The health care bill is not about health care it is about sick care. If you want health care then start looking towards the root of the problem, stress, poor nutrition and environmental toxins. Address those issues and our health care bills will fall dramatically.

They might try and block medical care for 9/11 first responders as within that bill it contains additional provisions that just might do harm. The legislators (bill writers seem to throw in all kinds of crap in the bills they try to pass. A good example is how inside the veterans funding bill they are trying to stealth pass the food safety modernization act...

(NaturalNews) In a last-ditch effort to resurrect S.510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, House Democrats are effectively hiding approval of the bill inside another bill -- HR 3082, an appropriations bill meant to fund the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030661_Food_Safety_HR_3082.html#ixzz17mBU2ovA

Maybe, just maybe both side of our government are working against the people.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

We all have our political filters John, and yours is showing here. Yes there are RINO's that are in with the Progressives and they have been exposed, many were thrown out in recent elections. But the laws you are irked about are coming at the hands of the Obama Administration not the Republican party, which has no power. Those who complain yet vote for the continuance of those who perpetuate the problems make no sense to me. Limited Government is the mantra of the Conservative Tea Party movement and there are no Dems in power offering that. So what does one do? I have seen and heard the propositions and plans from the horses mouth as far as the Progressives takeover and "fundamental change" of our Country, I wish I were wrong about it, but I didn't just imagine this stuff, it is happening and now it is effecting you and the worst is yet to come. So no, I don't care about this D or R competition, just the Conservative vs Progressive battle that is in progress.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

Here is a good place to start with the Progressives own source for info and how they are a part of the Obama agenda. George Soros funded CAP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_f... And with people like Van Jones on board we are in great hands. http://www.americanprogress.org/aboutus/staff

The group that Harry Reid credited with the stimulus bill and wouldn't you know? Van Jones is here too, an avowed radical Communist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_A... But what about the engineer of 5 other takeovers of foreign Governments, George Soros, and his connection to it all? "When Soros targets a country for "regime change," he begins by creating a shadow government -- a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=977

The puppet master has his hands all over our lives. The info is there for the taking, believe it or not at our own peril.

0

trump_suit 4 years ago

Seeuski posts "The group that Harry Reid credited with the stimulus bill and wouldn't you know? Van Jones is here too, an avowed radical Communist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_A..."

From the link posted:

The stated goals of the Apollo Alliance are: Promote advanced technology and hybrid electric cars. Invest in more efficient factories. Encourage high-performance building. Increase use of energy efficient appliances. Modernize electrical infrastructure (smart grid). Expand renewable energy development. Improve transportation options. Reinvest in smart urban growth. Plan for a hydrogen future. Preserve regulatory protections.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

I absolutely expected that from a Progressive, is that what "social justice" means to you? Because to these groups it means a whole lot more and your posting of the window dressings from them won't hide the Socialist agenda as stated in their own words. That was quick though, so I know you only spent a moment looking for the candy coating you so quoted. Good job trump.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

So this man is of no consequence and he isn't explaining what has taken place as it was planned by these groups? In his words,"we were taught to do". The freedom of the press is right now under attack and the Progressive groups that those like Van Jones represent are trying to shut down media that over 1/2 of the US population count on for information why? To control all of us. So, is it save the climate,or collapse Capitalism and socialize the US? http://www.theblaze.com/stories/inside-out-van-jones-grab-the-whip-run-the-plantation-take-media-power-from-mean-dumb-republicans/

0

trump_suit 4 years ago

When you inundate your brain with the constant mis-information that you post and quote, it is no wonder that your view of the world is so skewed and scared.

0

seeuski 4 years ago

It's all fake? Is that your answer trump? I am providing their words and videos and you claim it is "mis-information". Golly gee, I am sorry I take these things too literally being that their agenda has been enacted into law and is effecting our lives, I'll try to make believe that it is all a fantasy from now on and just bury my head in the sand, not!!!!!!!

0

seeuski 4 years ago

Wow, we are in the same fight today that Americans found themselves in back in 1948, this old video is as timely now as it was then. Keep the ism out of my life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75y...

0

cindy constantine 4 years ago

GIVE IT A REST, SUS. We all know how you feel and the election is OVER. You will have a stroke with all your rants then we will never be able to see-u-ski.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years ago

Amazing video sees. Didn't realize you were so opposed to capitalISM, that you think we have sold out our individual rights by supporting capitalism.

Of course, as the video clearly showed, USA was a place where the rights of white men were well established.

To me it is a pretty sad statement of those times that people could be so fearful of presumably communism and socialism that workers exercising their rights to organize into an union was a bad thing and overall they were satisfied with US freedoms even as those freedoms were being denied to a significant portion of the US population.

I love freedom and think it is such a good thing that it should be granted to all US citizens.

0

jimmmmmm 4 years ago

Here's a video for you. Please watch-yes it's Jon Stewart, but this is no joke. Unfreakinbelievable. Well done Jon Stewart show.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.