67 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
RE: 146,000 jobs were created,
AND they are good paying jobs...You go Obama!!!!!!!
When does this administration become accountable?
I totally agree the average pay scale for government jobs " Dreamwell" is nearly three times what the private sector makes, not including the outstanding benefits that they get compared to the private sector (all on the taxpayers' backs....including those taxpayers who "Dreamwell"are already paying for their own)?
If "they" did....
......you'd only claim the numbers were fudged (again) or something, so why bother?
Nobody thinks 7.7% is something to brag about, Toni. It's an improvement though, and I bet those 146,000 people are a lot happier about it than you are.
Guess it doesn't matter that 350K dropped out though.........either they gave up, their unemployment benefits ended, or they retired. 350,000 no longer paying into the system vs 146,000 that 'are' but at a far larger expense on the taxpayers' dime than if they were private jobs. You obviously don't see anything wrong with the picture.
Would you be crying if they created
146,000 jobs in the military?
Which, by the way would, be "government jobs".
Eliminate the retirees and what do you get?
I haven't checked your numbers and I'm not inclined to. The rate could drop to 4% tomorrow and you'd find a way to gripe about it.
Link provide upon request.
"Businesses added 147,000 workers, while state, local and federal governments cut 1,000
I already have that link since I'm
the one who provided it in the first place.....as far as the 'cuts' you mention, were they actually CUT or did they retire with big pensions (at taxpayer expense)?
so you are trying to suggest the golden parachute...
... a civil servant gets is comparable to private industry?
Give me a break!
RE: I'm the one who provided it in the first place
show me where in either one or both of YOUR links it says
state, local and federal governments cut 1,000
For some reason or other when someone mentions military
Maybe it's because of your ignorance on the matter
You act like "working" for the military is of no worth. People die, people are injured, people work in many areas to insure peace, watch for warning signs, interpreting foreign communications indicating adverse military movements, and a whole host of other things. You don't seem to realize where we'd be as a nation without any military, because that's the other side of that coin. You don't seem to have any problem with those getting paid in the govt social services, yet keep harping about the military. Your bias is all too clear. That's probably why she's decided to ignore your ignorance on the matter, since you wouldn't get it anyway.
RE: That's probably why she's decided to ignore
That's probably why she's decided to ignore your ignorance on the matter, since you wouldn't get it anyway.
She told you this?
I'm guessing, just like YOU.
Do you think
It's pitiful (you've used that word recently, I thought this was good opportunity to work it into the conversation) that Toni would start a thread with the sole purpose of poking the Liberals?
The thread isn't about the job numbers but about why the Liberals weren't high fiving?
you think I'm pitiful?
Isn't he pitiful?
by James Denison - 12/8/12 2:59 PM
In Reply to: What I think by TONI H
you are the highlight of his day.
Perhaps SHE'S lonelier than YOU think
Does this mean you are trying to build a relationship with her, to combat her perceived loneliness?
We already have one
Are you jealous?
It seems you're trying to destroy it, by telling me she's ignoring me, calling me pitiful...and on and on and on.
Just leave your boogers on the wall...I'll check them when I get up in a few hours.
That's just one reason Mitt Romney's "47%" remarks were so offensive, since that number includes active-duty military.
Pure BS Josh as ...
almost all military personnel PAY TAXES and only a relative few qualify for the EIC.
So do most of the employed....
.....who fell into that 47%, Ed.
So would you cut all gov't pensions? how much?
I would cut them, yes......
especially the amounts they receive since they are already three times higher than what a private sector job equal to what the job is would get paid.
Something I found interesting that came up last evening.......BO has been in office for slightly more than 1400 days.......and yet he has increased the government payroll by 95 jobs PER DAY since he took office. And he's not done yet. Most of those jobs were to increase or create new departments/agencies that go along with BO's agendas (more EPA, more IRS, more czars, more security for people like Jarrett, etc).
I also found it interesting that although there are statements made here that 1000 jobs have been cut from 'local, state' and federal' governments, I could only find where state and local governments were the ones doing the cutting; whereas BO has added another 14,250 jobs with much better pay scales and benefits than the local/state governments could possibly pay. The difference is that States are required by law to balance a budget (even the point where one city laid off their entire police department because they had no funds to pay them), whereas the Feds aren't required to balance a budget and just keep printing the money.
Fed Reserve is already planning to do another QE-3 with the money (plus adding to it) with the money they just got ($5B) as profit from selling the AIG stock, all the while knowing that even though by law they are required to have a budget every year and have thumbed their nose at that for the last four years in a row and plan to ignore it again.
When does this administration become accountable for their actions (non-actions)? When does this Administration stop flaunting it to the people that they are above the very laws that their own emploERS are required to follow?
RE:When does this administration become accountable
When does this administration become accountable for their actions?
Nov 6, 2012, Nov 4, 2014, Nov 8, 2016
When does this administration become accountable?
You still haven't answered that same question regarding the previous administration. Apparently they weren't accountable for 9/11 since it happened "only" nine months in. I asked you what the cutoff date was and you still haven't provided one.
When you make Clinton accountable for
his inaction, Josh........he had many instances during his administration of terror attacks against us and did nothing in 8 years.
He didn't do "nothing"
The perpetrators of the first WTC attack are in prison. In hindsight we can see that he probably didn't do enough, but he didn't do "nothing." And yes, he's accountable for any attacks that happened during his presidency.
That's true, Clinton did something
He blew up a baby milk formula plant and called it a day.
Bush didn't do 'nothing' either
He went to war against them all.........Clinton had warnings that he didn't pay any attention to and when the first WTC attack happened, he went after them AFTER the fact, just like Bush....but Clinton got a nod and a wink and an 'atta boy' even though it took many previous attacks before WTC happened. Bush has been crucified by you guys because it was nine MONTHS with NO attacks previous to 9-11 on his watch. Other than a few drone attacks and OBL (because of Intel that BUSH got for him), BO has done nothing except talk a good game. The first 'red line' for Syria was "if you MOVE the chemicals"......then they were moved and he didn't do or say anything. Now they are not only MOVED, but MIXED and ready to drop.....so BO drew a new 'red line' of "If you USE them, there's gonna be trouble for you, mister".......
Won't that be a little, too little, too late?
Obama has been much more aggressive against terrorists than Bush ever was. The numbers back that up.
You still haven't answered my question -- at what point does a president become accountable, if it isn't nine months into his term?
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)