It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jobless Claims Back Up to 400,000 - Time to blame Bush again?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


Probably because his job is to pass/veto bills that kill/grow jobs.
His job is also to oversee the budget and any necessary cuts.
When you push for legislation that impacts the private sector, you are directly responsible for that fallout.
Universal healthcare is one. There are others, but that one is the biggie. Most companies health care costs have tripled since that little piece of trash was shoved down our throats. I know, I work for a health insurance broker!

When you triple the costs of employee benefits, the money has to come from somewhere. And either you get rid of people, or you cut their benefits. Companies will cut the workforce first.
edit on 1/12/2012 by haarvik because: (no reason given)


And that is a business decision. You act like a business has only one option and it is always to cut. Now I'm not referring to small business, but large corporations who are the main employers. When a piece of legislation is passed down that adds costs to the employer (corporation) said employer has a few options. A. - The most common choice is a raise in the price of the good or service they provide. Happens all the time. B. - Lay off workers and stop hiring to ensure that the negative impact on earnings is offset. C. - Accept that there is an additional cost burden and bite the bullet.

Obviously, A or B could always be the answer when you are referring to the large, multi-billion dollar a yet in earnings corporations. However THE CORPORATION makes the decision to lay off. They don't have to go that route; they choose to.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
Why do people always blame a President for the unemployment rate? What the hell did any President have to do with employment? A business makes a decision to hire or not hire. A business makes the decision to lay off or not lay off. They do not call the President to see what the recommendation is.

Funny how everyone yells for "less government" but demands to know FROM THE PRESIDENT where the jobs are. Stupid, really.


I guess you forgot (ignored) stories of business owners refusing to hire until Obama is removed from office.

Presidents agendas most certainly factor in hiring decisions for many small businesses.


I didn't forget anything. Those business owners made a choice.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


Yes they did. It's a ripple effect. They raise prices to offset incurred costs, and now workers need more pay to afford those products, business has to raise prices to increase workers pay. And round and round she goes. The backbone of the American economy is not big business. It's small business. These are the folks who cannot afford to have workers benefits triple in cost.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 



When you push for legislation that impacts the private sector, you are directly responsible for that fallout.
Universal healthcare is one. There are others, but that one is the biggie. Most companies health care costs have tripled since that little piece of trash was shoved down our throats. I know, I work for a health insurance broker!


edit on 1/12/2012 by haarvik because: (no reason given)


Look, I understand that Obamacare is a very flawed piece of legislation, but ultimately, the costs of healthcare in this country have to be reigned in. If this starts the process, then so be it. Insurers increased the costs, but they have been increasing the costs at a ridiculous rate for quite some time prior to Obama even being a candidate for President. It isn't just the insurance aspect that is broken, it's the price of everything rating to healthcare in this country.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 
that's called the 1% influence, for they are the ones that count, do you really think the Pres gives a rats @$$ about the other 99% , other than when it comes to voting time and out comes the speal to please the voting field, he did this once before and we , like the times before, got suckered and fooled. do we need a second time? I say not this time. we need real change Ron P is the start then out goes the house and senate all new faces not one should be left in office that has more than one term in, 2 you know the games and how to pleas the one fool the other, what to say or do to get your way, with all new faces , no one would have a clue.


edit on 12-1-2012 by bekod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


The costs of healthcare have escalated at a rate faster than at any other time since the legislation was passed.
It was rushed through, and even those that voted for it admitted they didn't know everything that was in it.
By signing it into law, Obama is ultimately responsible for the fallout related to this piece of communist crap.
There were other things that could have been done to reduce the costs of healthcare.

While I am not a proponent of government control, this is one area that desperately needs it. Congress could have passed a law that put strict limits on what could be charged for healthcare. They could have reigned in both the insurers and big pharma. Those two alone are the biggest single problem with these costs. The other factor is these stupid lawsuits. There should be a limit on what someone can collect when there is a mistake. Not all mistakes are negligent and no one is perfect.

Those are the things that needed addressed. That is where Obama and the rest of our communist reps failed.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


You forgot....kill pork spending.

A tunnel under roads so lizards don't get squashed. Like they can read signs.


Drying up agriculture in California so that a little fish can florish.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
Sorry but blaming won't work. Been there - Done that
The American people want solutions not excuses. Does Obama have any???


Agreed, passing blame around is not solving the problem. Even an accurate identification of the source of the problem (the policies of the Bush regime) doesn't help solve it.

Obama has solutions, yes. They may or may not be effective. The behavior of the Republican party, to oppose everything Obama does - even when Obama does things supported by Republicans - and cause as much chaos and delay as possible has resulted in Obama's solutions not being put to a real test. He has given away far too much of his own positions in useless attempts to get actual work out of the GOP instead of obstructionism.

So I guess we don't really know the state of Obama's solutions to this problem.



I think he prefers to hang out on the golf course and call Americans lazy.


Sigh. Here, have some more kool-aid. Obama never said Americans are lazy. I'm fully aware of the out-of-context quote that when listened to in isolation sounds like he said that. But he did not, and anybody with two working brain neurons knows it.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 



When you push for legislation that impacts the private sector, you are directly responsible for that fallout.
Universal healthcare is one. There are others, but that one is the biggie. Most companies health care costs have tripled since that little piece of trash was shoved down our throats. I know, I work for a health insurance broker!


edit on 1/12/2012 by haarvik because: (no reason given)


Look, I understand that Obamacare is a very flawed piece of legislation, but ultimately, the costs of healthcare in this country have to be reigned in. If this starts the process, then so be it. Insurers increased the costs, but they have been increasing the costs at a ridiculous rate for quite some time prior to Obama even being a candidate for President. It isn't just the insurance aspect that is broken, it's the price of everything rating to healthcare in this country.


ObamaCare has doctors threatening to retire early.
With fewer doctors and more patients = take a number or Medical Tourism.

Medical Tourism is the little trick they use in Canada. - Public Option -

Getting rid of the fraud in MediCare would be a great solution our health care mess.

----
The good news is that the SCOTUS will save us.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


While I am not a proponent of government control, this is one area that desperately needs it. Congress could have passed a law that put strict limits on what could be charged for healthcare. They could have reigned in both the insurers and big pharma. Those two alone are the biggest single problem with these costs. The other factor is these stupid lawsuits. There should be a limit on what someone can collect when there is a mistake. Not all mistakes are negligent and no one is perfect.


And that would be our area of common ground, which I like to find in a lively debate. I completely agree and I shall bow out. Good thread.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


The costs of healthcare have escalated at a rate faster than at any other time since the legislation was passed.
It was rushed through, and even those that voted for it admitted they didn't know everything that was in it.
By signing it into law, Obama is ultimately responsible for the fallout related to this piece of communist crap.
There were other things that could have been done to reduce the costs of healthcare.

While I am not a proponent of government control, this is one area that desperately needs it. Congress could have passed a law that put strict limits on what could be charged for healthcare. They could have reigned in both the insurers and big pharma. Those two alone are the biggest single problem with these costs. The other factor is these stupid lawsuits. There should be a limit on what someone can collect when there is a mistake. Not all mistakes are negligent and no one is perfect.

Those are the things that needed addressed. That is where Obama and the rest of our communist reps failed.


As far as funding, Glenn Beck says some of the funding for it is from the Federal Reserve!

That is the new liberal honey pot. We may have to move Herman Cain over to the Fed
to find out what the hell is going on over there.

Funding for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau also comes from the
Federal Reserve.

We should replace ObamaCare with tort reform.
edit on 12-1-2012 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
It's Bill Clinton's fault.

The Quadrennial Defense Review got rid of 550,000 blue collar civil service jobs and entire units in the military......So the money could be used abroad to buy off countries, dictators, people.

He got rid of middle class American jobs. Congress gave the former Soviet Territory Georgia $5 billion to build 130 hospitals. money that used to be used to give Americans jobs.

Hillary Clinton upon becoming Secretary of State did a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations and she said she's doing the same thing her husband did, but to the State Department. She's eliminating American jobs in the State Department so the money can be used abroad.

Plus Rumsfeld's 2005 BRAC to close many military bases and create a couple big cheaply ran "Super Bases" axed hundreds of thousands of jobs as well.

The Nation has been robbed.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
It's Bill Clinton's fault.

The Quadrennial Defense Review got rid of 550,000 blue collar civil service jobs and entire units in the military......So the money could be used abroad to buy off countries, dictators, people.

He got rid of middle class American jobs. Congress gave the former Soviet Territory Georgia $5 billion to build 130 hospitals. money that used to be used to give Americans jobs.

Hillary Clinton upon becoming Secretary of State did a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations and she said she's doing the same thing her husband did, but to the State Department. She's eliminating American jobs in the State Department so the money can be used abroad.

Plus Rumsfeld's 2005 BRAC to close many military bases and create a couple big cheaply ran "Super Bases" axed hundreds of thousands of jobs as well.

The Nation has been robbed.


Spilled milk. Do you have any solutions?

I think we will mysteriously see the unemployment rate fall if we simply undo everything
that Obama did during his presidency.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


Probably because his job is to pass/veto bills that kill/grow jobs.
His job is also to oversee the budget and any necessary cuts.
When you push for legislation that impacts the private sector, you are directly responsible for that fallout.
Universal healthcare is one. There are others, but that one is the biggie. Most companies health care costs have tripled since that little piece of trash was shoved down our throats. I know, I work for a health insurance broker!

When you triple the costs of employee benefits, the money has to come from somewhere. And either you get rid of people, or you cut their benefits. Companies will cut the workforce first.
edit on 1/12/2012 by haarvik because: (no reason given)


And that is a business decision. You act like a business has only one option and it is always to cut. Now I'm not referring to small business, but large corporations who are the main employers. When a piece of legislation is passed down that adds costs to the employer (corporation) said employer has a few options. A. - The most common choice is a raise in the price of the good or service they provide. Happens all the time. B. - Lay off workers and stop hiring to ensure that the negative impact on earnings is offset. C. - Accept that there is an additional cost burden and bite the bullet.

Obviously, A or B could always be the answer when you are referring to the large, multi-billion dollar a yet in earnings corporations. However THE CORPORATION makes the decision to lay off. They don't have to go that route; they choose to.


The management of the corporation has a legal and fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.
- Free Market Capitalism -



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 
well show me one bill that did not have some pork in it, doubt if you can, so then this is a given.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


It doesn't make a differnce who you blame if 400,000 people make a jobless claim then 400,000 people make a jobless claim.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
That is new Jobless this is FOX Business lol

the Numbers of Jobless Claims are soo skewed its unreal.

In reality if you know anything about Maths Stats and Finance read between the lines look at the pop of USA compared to those paying IRS, and also looking at "official" figures, and compare with doomsday over the top figures by some commentators it appears and I feel comfortable this is about 5% plus/minus about 20% one in 5 of Americans are not in work, or living of savings, parents homeless or not seeking work anymore or relying on charity begging.

A rule of thumb if they say Government 9% double it and add 2% for something approaching reality.

Kind Regards,

Elf



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Dear OP, if you want the jobless claims to drop to minimal and blame it on everyone else, just get the morons in congress to STOP funding and bailing out the rich, put money where it will circulate- to the people.

Enough of your blame gamemanships.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by TDawgRex
 
well show me one bill that did not have some pork in it, doubt if you can, so then this is a given.



and hence, a BIG part of the problem.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101


Enough of your blame gamemanships.

Boom. perfectly said.

The standing Pres , and the ones before him, and the ones after him will have little to nothing to do with jobs created or lost. Look towards Congress and the Fed.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join