Obammy is doing a Fing Bang up job with the Economy aint he?

[olevetonahill]

Why according to Matlock the 8th we all ****tin Skittles and Pizsin RainBows :dog:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy contracted at a much steeper pace than previously estimated in the first quarter to record its worst performance in five years, but there are indications that growth has since rebounded strongly.

It do say its rebounded but from What? The worst performance in 5 years thats what.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-economy-contracts-2-9-123534819.html

[BoulderSooner79]

It's working' for me. Of course, I'm in the 1% now, so that's pretty much a given regardless of whose in office.

[Eielson]

Finger bang?

[olevetonahill]

Finger bang?

I were to lazy to do the *** in between :lemo:

[okie52]

It's working' for me. Of course, I'm in the 1% now, so that's pretty much a given regardless of whose in office.

Congratulations!! You can afford that high grade weed in Boulder.

[hawaii 5-0]

Stock Market up. Unemployment down.

I'm OK with that.

I just wish I had an ice cream sammich.


5-0

[BoulderSooner79]

Stock Market up. Unemployment down.

I'm OK with that.

I just wish I had an ice cream sammich.


5-0

Me too - especially after all that weed I've been smokin'.

[FaninAma]

The unemployment numbers are bull****. The stock market is up because the Fed keeps pumping up that hot air ballon. Where else you going to put your money? Both my equity market funds and bond market funds are doing great because everyone knows the Fed will never, every be able to withdraw the stimulus.(QE)

BTW, Reuters is the modern day Pravda. They can never report the news without putting in some editorial comment favorable to Obama and the Democrats.

[olevetonahill]

Stock Market up. Unemployment down.

I'm OK with that.

I just wish I had an ice cream sammich.


5-0

Thats the Prob with this country, every one is happy as long as they get a small piece of the pie. Dont matter whats best for the country as a whole Just whats in it for them.

[BoulderSooner79]

Thats the Prob with this country, every one is happy as long as they get a small piece of the pie. Dont matter whats best for the country as a whole Just whats in it for them.

Isn't that the conservative, free market philosophy? Let the "silent hand" guide you, and if everyone does it, that's what's good for the whole? (And no, I don't believe it myself).

[olevetonahill]

Isn't that the conservative, free market philosophy? Let the "silent hand" guide you, and if everyone does it, that's what's good for the whole? (And no, I don't believe it myself).

I aint got a Clue what that is. This conservative says Take care of the country 1st and quit with all the special interest groups.

[8timechamps]

The unemployment numbers are bull****. The stock market is up because the Fed keeps pumping up that hot air ballon. Where else you going to put your money? Both my equity market funds and bond market funds are doing great because everyone knows the Fed will never, every be able to withdraw the stimulus.(QE)

BTW, Reuters is the modern day Pravda. They can never report the news without putting in some editorial comment favorable to Obama and the Democrats.

I realized this about 8 months ago. It's getting increasingly more difficult to find an actual, unbiased news outlet.

[Sooner8th]

Why according to Matlock the 8th we all ****tin Skittles and Pizsin RainBows :dog:



It do say its rebounded but from What? The worst performance in 5 years thats what.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-economy-contracts-2-9-123534819.html

You are just too stupid. Did you actually read the story? Or just jump to obammy sucks?

Remember YOUR link to YOUR story.


The economy was held back by an unusually cold winter, the expiration of long-term unemployment benefits and cuts to food stamps, which curbed consumer spending. It was also weighed down by a slowdown in the pace of restocking by businesses.

All these temporary factors have since faded, lifting growth early in the second quarter.

The government's gauge of first-quarter growth has been lowered by 3.0 percentage points since the first estimate in April showed the economy expanded at a 0.1 percent rate, and revision between the May and June release was the largest on records going back to 1976.

Economists had expected the revision to show the economy shrinking at a rate of only 1.7 percent. Given the sharp downgrade, growth this year could struggle to reach 2 percent.

Investors shrugged off the weak data and bought U.S. stocks. Prices for U.S. Treasury debt were up at mid-day, while the dollar was marginally weaker against a basket of currencies.

The latest GDP revision reflected a weaker pace of healthcare spending than previously assumed, which led to a cut in the figure for consumer spending to show the slowest rise since the fourth quarter of 2009. Trade was also a bigger drag on the economy than previously thought.

ACTIVITY PICKING UP

The economy grew at a 2.6 percent pace in the final three months of 2013, and second-quarter growth estimates range as high as a 4.0 percent rate. The lofty growth expectations were supported by other data on Wednesday showing activity in the services sector hitting a 4-1/2 year high in June.

While a decline in bookings for defense capital goods and civilian aircraft sank orders for long-lasting U.S. manufactured goods in May, according to a third report, businesses spending plans rebounded from April's slump. That suggested a steady pick-up in business investment, a crucial ingredient for sustained economic growth.

There were also increases in order backlogs and inventories.

"Outside the defense realm, orders are moving up, shipments are moving up, and inventory gains are returning. That is the precise recipe for production and job gains," said Michael Montgomery, a U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts.

In the first quarter, growth in consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, was lowered to a 1.0 percent rate from a 3.1 percent pace.

Exports fell at a 8.9 percent rate, the biggest drop in five years, instead of a 6.0 percent pace. That resulted in a trade deficit that sliced off 1.53 percentage points from GDP growth.

Other drags to first-quarter growth included a slow pace of inventory accumulation, a sharp drop in investment in non-residential structures such as gas drilling, and weak government spending on defense.

Businesses accumulated $45.9 billion worth of inventories, a bit less than the $49.0 billion estimated last month and well below the fourth quarter pace. Inventories subtracted 1.70 percentage points from first-quarter growth, but should be a boost to second-quarter growth

A measure of domestic demand that strips out exports and inventories expanded at a 0.3 percent rate, the weakest pace in three years, rather than 1.6 percent as reported a month ago.


Four of the factors that held it back

unusually cold winter - must be obamas fault

expiration of long-term unemployment benefits - REPUBLICANS REFUSED TO EXTEND THEM

cuts to food stamps - AGAIN REPUBLICAN CUTS

slowdown in the pace of restocking by businesses - consumer spending slows down and you don't need to restock as quickly so you can keep inventory down

Do you want to talk about The latest GDP revision reflected a weaker pace of healthcare spending than previously assumed? oh no obamacare!!!

dumbass

[olevetonahill]

HeHeHe
I got him Now should I do the Catch and release???
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYL0XseRP0kOkpug_fSDJiVbv2ukxH_ SRsLHk5U35tWymh6sqF

[Sooner8th]

Why according to Matlock the 8th we all ****tin Skittles and Pizsin RainBows :dog:



It do say its rebounded but from What? The worst performance in 5 years thats what.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-economy-contracts-2-9-123534819.html

Do you really want to talk about obama performance when under George Bush GDP growth was an average 1.67 percent?

Stellar performance under the guy you voted for.

[Sooner8th]

HeHeHe
I got him Now should I do the Catch and release???
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYL0XseRP0kOkpug_fSDJiVbv2ukxH_ SRsLHk5U35tWymh6sqF

Typical dumbass when you are pimp slapped down you claim it's a setup.

dumbass

[olevetonahill]

Typical dumbass when you are pimp slapped down you claim it's a setup.

dumbass

LMFAO @ YOU Do you really take this innweb bidness this serious?

[Sooner8th]

LMFAO @ YOU Do you really take this innweb bidness this serious?

I am not the one who posted it in the first place dumbass.

[olevetonahill]

I am not the one who posted it in the first place dumbass.

The rest of Us https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmeD5c-RiDOsiqhUWOah9MreUVs6PZHlols6dhqeKVcrPgUT4wgQ

At YOU

[Sooner8th]

The rest of Us https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQmeD5c-RiDOsiqhUWOah9MreUVs6PZHlols6dhqeKVcrPgUT4wgQ

At YOU

Getting this straight, you took the time, energy and effort to post copy and paste part of article, post the link and comment on it. When I go over your article I copy and paste it and comment on it and I take this too seriously? dumbass

They only person laughing around here is me laughing at your ignorant childish ***.

[olevetonahill]

Getting this straight, you took the time, energy and effort to post copy and paste part of article, post the link and comment on it. When I go over your article I copy and paste it and comment on it and I take this too seriously? dumbass

They only person laughing around here is me laughing at your ignorant childish ***.

Answer me this Matlock8th. Is it Painful to be so ****ing stupid?

[Sooner8th]

Answer me this Matlock8th. Is it Painful to be so ****ing stupid?

answer me this is it painful to be so ****ing ignorant and childish?

Go back to your inbreding.

[olevetonahill]

answer me this is it painful to be so ****ing ignorant and childish?

Go back to your inbreding.

OOH Ya Zinged me Oh no I dont inbreed Ya moran Plus ya cant even spell Yet ya Poke fun at me LOL

[Sooner8th]

OOH Ya Zinged me Oh no I dont inbreed Ya moran Plus ya cant even spell Yet ya Poke fun at me LOL

got ya - it was a joke, remember how misspelling words is funny in here?

me laughing at you

http://www.travelalaska.com/~/media/Images/Travel%20Alaska/Skins/500x333/fish_reeling.jpg?h=233&mh=250&mw=350&w=350

[FaninAma]

You are just too stupid. Did you actually read the story? Or just jump to obammy sucks?

Remember YOUR link to YOUR story.


The economy was held back by an unusually cold winter, the expiration of long-term unemployment benefits and cuts to food stamps, which curbed consumer spending. It was also weighed down by a slowdown in the pace of restocking by businesses.

All these temporary factors have since faded, lifting growth early in the second quarter.

The government's gauge of first-quarter growth has been lowered by 3.0 percentage points since the first estimate in April showed the economy expanded at a 0.1 percent rate, and revision between the May and June release was the largest on records going back to 1976.

Economists had expected the revision to show the economy shrinking at a rate of only 1.7 percent. Given the sharp downgrade, growth this year could struggle to reach 2 percent.

Investors shrugged off the weak data and bought U.S. stocks. Prices for U.S. Treasury debt were up at mid-day, while the dollar was marginally weaker against a basket of currencies.

The latest GDP revision reflected a weaker pace of healthcare spending than previously assumed, which led to a cut in the figure for consumer spending to show the slowest rise since the fourth quarter of 2009. Trade was also a bigger drag on the economy than previously thought.

ACTIVITY PICKING UP

The economy grew at a 2.6 percent pace in the final three months of 2013, and second-quarter growth estimates range as high as a 4.0 percent rate. The lofty growth expectations were supported by other data on Wednesday showing activity in the services sector hitting a 4-1/2 year high in June.

While a decline in bookings for defense capital goods and civilian aircraft sank orders for long-lasting U.S. manufactured goods in May, according to a third report, businesses spending plans rebounded from April's slump. That suggested a steady pick-up in business investment, a crucial ingredient for sustained economic growth.

There were also increases in order backlogs and inventories.

"Outside the defense realm, orders are moving up, shipments are moving up, and inventory gains are returning. That is the precise recipe for production and job gains," said Michael Montgomery, a U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts.

In the first quarter, growth in consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, was lowered to a 1.0 percent rate from a 3.1 percent pace.

Exports fell at a 8.9 percent rate, the biggest drop in five years, instead of a 6.0 percent pace. That resulted in a trade deficit that sliced off 1.53 percentage points from GDP growth.

Other drags to first-quarter growth included a slow pace of inventory accumulation, a sharp drop in investment in non-residential structures such as gas drilling, and weak government spending on defense.

Businesses accumulated $45.9 billion worth of inventories, a bit less than the $49.0 billion estimated last month and well below the fourth quarter pace. Inventories subtracted 1.70 percentage points from first-quarter growth, but should be a boost to second-quarter growth

A measure of domestic demand that strips out exports and inventories expanded at a 0.3 percent rate, the weakest pace in three years, rather than 1.6 percent as reported a month ago.


Four of the factors that held it back

unusually cold winter - must be obamas fault

expiration of long-term unemployment benefits - REPUBLICANS REFUSED TO EXTEND THEM

cuts to food stamps - AGAIN REPUBLICAN CUTS

slowdown in the pace of restocking by businesses - consumer spending slows down and you don't need to restock as quickly so you can keep inventory down

Do you want to talk about The latest GDP revision reflected a weaker pace of healthcare spending than previously assumed? oh no obamacare!!!

dumbass

Like I said, Reuters is a just a propagandist POS operation that always inserts pro-Obama or pro_democrat commentary into their "news" stories.

And I will bet you $100 dollars that the GDP doesn't swing from (-) 2.6 % this quarter to (+) 4.0 % in the next quarter.

And to show you what a lying, POS, politicized organization Reuters has become:
"Heath Care Spending Surges in 1st Quarter of 2014"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/03/health-care-spending-gdp/8570053/

"The Myth of Food Stamps Spending Cuts"
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_25235239/myth-food-stamp-spending-cuts

Why don't you just admit that Obama is your Jim Jones and you are all too happy to drink the red koolaid when he passes it out just like any good cult member would.

[REDREX]

The economy is weak---one more Qtr of contraction and it is Barack's recession----His policies are not good for business

[olevetonahill]

got ya - it was a joke, remember how misspelling words is funny in here?

me laughing at you

http://www.travelalaska.com/~/media/Images/Travel%20Alaska/Skins/500x333/fish_reeling.jpg?h=233&mh=250&mw=350&w=350

F*ckin Moran

[Skysooner]

This is all bs anyway. We are going to have contractions in the economy. Still we are in a total transformation to a world economy. This has been underway for 30+ years. Vet, you need to get over your prejudices. This is nobody's fault. Every person that has any sort of inventiveness in this world is going to want his 2.6 children and 2 to 3 cars in the garage (maybe with the exception of some of the Middle East and parts of SE Asia. Time to get aboard and understand that the globalization of economies is happening. National borders don't mean nearly as much now. It is the companies that adapt that will move ahead.

[olevetonahill]

This is all bs anyway. We are going to have contractions in the economy. Still we are in a total transformation to a world economy. This has been underway for 30+ years.
Vet, you need to get over your prejudices. This is nobody's fault. Every person that has any sort of inventiveness in this world is going to want his 2.6 children and 2 to 3 cars in the garage (maybe with the exception of some of the Middle East and parts of SE Asia. Time to get aboard and understand that the globalization of economies is happening. National borders don't mean nearly as much now. It is the companies that adapt that will move ahead.

Bro, You Miss my intent, I have NO prejudices, I really dont care at My age. This country is going to hell in a Handbasket and the Libs are weaving that basket. The USA will last at least till After Im gone . Yall cant see the end coming? I feel for you. Enjoy.

[olevetonahill]

Oh and as to My Intent , Simply to Fire up Matlock8th LOL

[FaninAma]

This is all bs anyway. We are going to have contractions in the economy. Still we are in a total transformation to a world economy. This has been underway for 30+ years. Vet, you need to get over your prejudices. This is nobody's fault. Every person that has any sort of inventiveness in this world is going to want his 2.6 children and 2 to 3 cars in the garage (maybe with the exception of some of the Middle East and parts of SE Asia. Time to get aboard and understand that the globalization of economies is happening. National borders don't mean nearly as much now. It is the companies that adapt that will move ahead.

Well then. Which region of the world do you want this country to be more like? Latin America? Asia and China? Africa?

Globalization of economies does not explain Obama's pathetic national energy policy. It does not explain his total abdication on border security. It does not explain his weak attempt to control health care. And please explain the dichotomy between your assertion that everything is becoming global and Obama's foreign policy of withdrawing from the world stage.

All cultures and societies are NOT equal. And the vapid belief by the globalists that we can somehow prop up the stone age societies around the world by lowering our standard of living will prove a miserable failure as the economic engines that have driven invention and industry for the past 300 years begin to collapse under the weight of carrying around all the dead weight of these backward societies.

[Skysooner]

Oh and as to My Intent , Simply to Fire up Matlock8th LOL

You miss my meaning. All of this was inevitable. I don't see this country becoming a backwater, but we need to continue to lead in all of the burgeoning industries which is not manufacturing. It is information technology, energy production, renewables etc.

[Skysooner]

Well then. Which region of the world do you want this country to be more like? Latin America? Asia and China? Africa?

Globalization of economies does not explain Obama's pathetic national energy policy. It does not explain his total abdication on border security. It does not explain his weak attempt to control health care. And please explain the dichotomy between your assertion that everything is becoming global and Obama's foreign policy of withdrawing from the world stage.

All cultures and societies are NOT equal. And the vapid belief by the globalists that we can somehow prop up the stone age societies around the world by lowering our standard of living will prove a miserable failure as the economic engines that have driven invention and industry for the past 300 years begin to collapse under the weight of carrying around all the dead weight of these backward societies.

Didn't say that at all. We need to invest more im education. Higher education that comes with a price like service to the country to rebuild our infrastructure. If you think Obama has hurt this country's energy production you are very sadly wrong. Just because you express things with vehemence doesn't make you flat wrong. This country should continue to excel if the government will pull its head out of the sand.

[olevetonahill]

You miss my meaning. All of this was inevitable. I don't see this country becoming a backwater, but we need to continue to lead in all of the burgeoning industries which is not manufacturing. It is information technology, energy production, renewables etc.

But what Im sayin is Now we are Leading from BEHIND bro. I really dont see the USA standing in 50/75 years as the Country it is today. Hope Im wrong

But its simple fact The ones who want to restrict a Free Country are gaining ground

Sure we gonna suffer Tragedy from time to time But that is the result Of a FREE and Unencumbered Populace. Start restricting those freedoms so every one will feel safe and see what Happens.
Ben Franklin addressed this .

[REDREX]

Didn't say that at all. We need to invest more im education. Higher education that comes with a price like service to the country to rebuild our infrastructure. If you think Obama has hurt this country's energy production you are very sadly wrong. Just because you express things with vehemence doesn't make you flat wrong. This country should continue to excel if the government will pull its head out of the sand.----What has Obama done that helps energy production?----You are kidding yourself if you don't think he has done everything he can to slow down or stop production on federal land----you are sadly wrong

[olevetonahill]

----What has Obama done that helps energy production?----You are kidding yourself if you don't think he has done everything he can to slow down or stop production on federal land----you are sadly wrong

But wait, Hes encourage Coal mining aint he? Or wait that was sompun else

[hawaii 5-0]

HeHeHe
I got him Now should I do the Catch and release???
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYL0XseRP0kOkpug_fSDJiVbv2ukxH_ SRsLHk5U35tWymh6sqF


I figgered you were trollin' (yet again). I still couldn't keep from nibblin' at the bait.


I can't keep from wondrin' how good things could be if Congress would actually work together like they used to.

This continued 'our way or we're gonna run the Country off the cliff' rhetoric is getting lame. Like a little kid holdin' his breath.

All it does is harm the Country.


5-0

[Skysooner]

----What has Obama done that helps energy production?----You are kidding yourself if you don't think he has done everything he can to slow down or stop production on federal land----you are sadly wrong

Dude. I have been at the center of the revolution that has added 2.5 million barrels of day of oil production plus we have well over 100 years of natural gas in North America. You are the one that is wrong. I do this for a living at a very high level. He talks but none of his actions have slowed us at all. Tell it to someone who doesn't know better.

[olevetonahill]

I figgered you were trollin' (yet again). I still couldn't keep from nibblin' at the bait.


I can't keep from wondrin' how good things could be if Congress would actually work together like they used to.

This continued 'our way or we're gonna run the Country off the cliff' rhetoric is getting lame. Like a little kid holdin' his breath.

All it does is harm the Country.


5-0

Yup. It aint The Lib Dems Nor the Conservative Pubs. Its the whole ****in Mess. Im serious when I say this Country as WE know it will cease to exist with in the next 50/75 years

[hawaii 5-0]

I can't disagree. It will continue to evolve.

Probably good to learn some more Espanol.


5-0

[REDREX]

Dude. I have been at the center of the revolution that has added 2.5 million barrels of day of oil production plus we have well over 100 years of natural gas in North America. You are the one that is wrong. I do this for a living at a very high level. He talks but none of his actions have slowed us at all. Tell it to someone who doesn't know better.--- The increased production is on private land ----production on public land has declined---How much more production could have been brought on if the public lands were available?

[FaninAma]

Dude. I have been at the center of the revolution that has added 2.5 million barrels of day of oil production plus we have well over 100 years of natural gas in North America. You are the one that is wrong. I do this for a living at a very high level. He talks but none of his actions have slowed us at all. Tell it to someone who doesn't know better.

Yeah, the delay in the Keystone XL pipeline and the absolute hammering of the coal industry by Obama's regulatory agencies has helped our energy independence a ****load.

[FaninAma]

I can't disagree. It will continue to evolve.

Probably good to learn some more Espanol.


5-0

You'd be better served to learn Chinese.

[Skysooner]

Yeah, the delay in the Keystone XL pipeline and the absolute hammering of the coal industry by Obama's regulatory agencies has helped our energy independence a ****load.
I
Coal is much more expensive and Keystone helps this country's energy industry more. I live and breathe this every day. Don't presume I am ignorant. I know more than you.

Most production is on private lands and guess what. We produce most unconventionals on private lands. Red. You don't know anything about what we do except right wing talking points.

[olevetonahill]

I can't disagree. It will continue to evolve.

Probably good to learn some more Espanol.


5-0

**** that noise. Ima be dead in 10 years er so. Yall worry about that shat!~

[olevetonahill]

I
Coal is much more expensive and Keystone helps this country's energy industry more. I live and breathe this every day. Don't presume I am ignorant. I know more than you.

Most production is on private lands and guess what. We produce most unconventionals on private lands. Red. You don't know anything about what we do except right wing talking points.

Sky, Ive always respected your Opinion on this , But are you sayin Obammy has NOT hurt our energy sector?

[Skysooner]

Sky, Ive always respected your Opinion on this , But are you sayin Obammy has NOT hurt our energy sector?

I am saying he has put out rhetoric. Keystone doesn't hurt us. New CO2 initiatives just push the inevitable to the forefront. Do we really want to continue to see miners die of black lung? One of the big stories today is that the US eased restrictions on oil imports. That is huge. Just fyi. I was the lead on a team for a $3 billion acquisition lately and all of this is taken into account. Just don't elect a total leftie.

[BoulderSooner79]

Yup. It aint The Lib Dems Nor the Conservative Pubs. Its the whole ****in Mess. Im serious when I say this Country as WE know it will cease to exist with in the next 50/75 years

This country has never been the same between any points in time that are 50 years apart and never will be. But I assume that you mean that it is changing at a faster rate that ever before and that is also true. This country has more than twice as many people than when I was born here and simply cannot be the same anymore. Everything in the future will be dictated or at least influenced by more and more people competing for diminishing resources coupled with increasing waste products. Technology can certainly help (as well as hurt), and we still lead in producing new and innovative technology. But society seems to move at a snails pace at adapting to required changes.

[okie52]

I am saying he has put out rhetoric. Keystone doesn't hurt us. New CO2 initiatives just push the inevitable to the forefront. Do we really want to continue to see miners die of black lung? One of the big stories today is that the US eased restrictions on oil imports. That is huge. Just fyi. I was the lead on a team for a $3 billion acquisition lately and all of this is taken into account. Just don't elect a total leftie.

Obama has done plenty to retard energy growth and harm oil and gas. I know you know this because we've had this discussion before.

Do I need to list them again or are you willing to admit that oil and gas growth in the US has been in spite of Obama?

This energy dumass stepped into office with the stupidest energy agenda I have ever seen in my 40 years in the business. The pass you're giving him by claiming its just rhetoric is an insult to oilies.

[BoulderSooner79]

At least the current administration recognizes that we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. Solar and wind contributions are growing at a high rate and our own oil consumption rate is pretty flat. That's taken the work of many people over the years, but the current administration scores pretty well compared to more recent ones. We should have been more aggressive since the oil embargo in 1973 showed us what was at stake. And that's just the political/economic side; the environmental side is just as important.

[okie52]

At least the current administration recognizes that we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. Solar and wind contributions are growing at a high rate and our own oil consumption rate is pretty flat. That's taken the work of many people over the years, but the current administration scores pretty well compared to more recent ones. We should have been more aggressive since the oil embargo in 1973 showed us what was at stake. And that's just the political/economic side; the environmental side is just as important.

I don't think anyone is saying oil and gas will last forever. Right now we probably have a 200 year reserve for ng...maybe a third of that for oil with current technology.

I certainly don't want us to stop R & D on renewables and let them develop to a point where they are a substantial part of our energy mix.

But I abhor creating mandates on our economy and energy industry for non existent technology or inadequate, non economic renewables. This is economic suicide and we were fortunate that this craziness didn't pass the senate at the height of the recession in 2009.
What's even crazier is the absolute disregard for non CO2 emitting nukes by this administration and the closing of Yucca in the first few months after Obama took office. Hell, he didn't even mention nukes in his cap and trade bill but gave ethanol a favored fuel status. That's not science or even a green ideology if you believe CO2 is harmful...just pure anti energy idiocy.

We have two oceans that will never be drilled on over an 8 year span and that is all, totally, 100% on Obama. That isn't rhetoric, that's a reality. We have fed drilling permits that are 1/3 of where they were when Obama took office. Our fed production has declining because of this. Our federal lease bonuses and royalties have also declined. Not rhetoric...reality.

[hawaii 5-0]

You'd be better served to learn Chinese.


See post #45.

Maybe if I was in my 20's. I'm not. It won't be my concern.


5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

Keystone doesn't hurt us.


Most permanent jobs will be created by workers cleaning up spills than maintaining the proposed pipeline.

BTW, where is the steel for the pipeline coming from? Not the pipe itself, the steel?

What's its PSI rating and what will the PSI actually be to run the oil thru the pipe?


5-0

[olevetonahill]

This country has never been the same between any points in time that are 50 years apart and never will be. But I assume that you mean that it is changing at a faster rate that ever before and that is also true. This country has more than twice as many people than when I was born here and simply cannot be the same anymore. Everything in the future will be dictated or at least influenced by more and more people competing for diminishing resources coupled with increasing waste products. Technology can certainly help (as well as hurt), and we still lead in producing new and innovative technology. But society seems to move at a snails pace at adapting to required changes.

No 79 Seriuosly Im saying that THIS country is and Will go from a Freedom Loving and Possessing Bunch To a 1984 type society Willing to GIVE up freedom for security. Im glad I will be gone for this is NOT what I slogged thru those Leach infested Jungles for.

[olevetonahill]

Ok Yall got a serious question here,
Where Does "Oil" Come from?Is it Dead Dinosaurs? Dead Fish? Dead Trees?
Or as they just showed that the earth is 3/4 s water in the Core?
Why do Dried up Oil wells suddenly start producing again?
I await yer answers
And Yes 5-0 this was initially a Trolling trip which succeeded By the way LOL But has since become an interesting thread !

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Why according to Matlock the 8th we all ****tin Skittles and Pizsin RainBows :dog:



It do say its rebounded but from What? The worst performance in 5 years thats what.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-economy-contracts-2-9-123534819.html

Vet,

The economy hasn't been good in Little Dixie since ..... ever.

[REDREX]

I
Coal is much more expensive and Keystone helps this country's energy industry more. I live and breathe this every day. Don't presume I am ignorant. I know more than you.

Most production is on private lands and guess what. We produce most unconventionals on private lands. Red. You don't know anything about what we do except right wing talking points.---Don't bet on that I am involved in everything from NGLs to refined products ,,pipelines , crude buying and gathering to oil field water hauling and building small crude units----Been in the business since 1978

[BoulderSooner79]

I don't think anyone is saying oil and gas will last forever. Right now we probably have a 200 year reserve for ng...maybe a third of that for oil with current technology.

I certainly don't want us to stop R & D on renewables and let them develop to a point where they are a substantial part of our energy mix.

But I abhor creating mandates on our economy and energy industry for non existent technology or inadequate, non economic renewables. This is economic suicide and we were fortunate that this craziness didn't pass the senate at the height of the recession in 2009.
What's even crazier is the absolute disregard for non CO2 emitting nukes by this administration and the closing of Yucca in the first few months after Obama took office. Hell, he didn't even mention nukes in his cap and trade bill but gave ethanol a favored fuel status. That's not science or even a green ideology if you believe CO2 is harmful...just pure anti energy idiocy.

We have two oceans that will never be drilled on over an 8 year span and that is all, totally, 100% on Obama. That isn't rhetoric, that's a reality. We have fed drilling permits that are 1/3 of where they were when Obama took office. Our fed production has declining because of this. Our federal lease bonuses and royalties have also declined. Not rhetoric...reality.

You still don't address the environmental issue except for the mention of nuclear. And they still have no solution for handling nuclear waste; although I agree we should continue to research the problem. I certainly do not trust government or industry to guard toxic waste with a 50 thousand year half life. Any energy policy that is just based on production and not on the total picture including the environment is not a policy at all. It is just a continuation of "get it while the gettin's good". If the earth was a giant ball of oil and we only had to drill a few hundred feet to tap an infinite supply, we would all die swimming in our own waste. Or more likely, we would take the issue seriously only after everyone on the planet had to live like the people in Beijing (or Los Angeles!). The only way to get industry to move early is to force them to because they won't do it by themselves. That's no knock on industry as that is the way the market is designed. It is up to regulation to steer it away from the course that only considers supply and ignores any side effects. Pure market dynamics is not a complete plan. If you want to observe a pure, unregulated market, look at organized crime.

[TAFBSooner]

But what Im sayin is Now we are Leading from BEHIND bro. I really dont see the USA standing in 50/75 years as the Country it is today. Hope Im wrong

But its simple fact The ones who want to restrict a Free Country are gaining ground

Sure we gonna suffer Tragedy from time to time But that is the result Of a FREE and Unencumbered Populace. Start restricting those freedoms so every one will feel safe and see what Happens.
Ben Franklin addressed this .

What restricts our formerly free country more? NSA spying, warrantless searches, trial-free killing of US citizens, and asset forfeiture when the property owner isn't even charged with a crime, or the fact that those of us who already had medical insurance in 2009 might have to pay more for that insurance someday (that hasn't happened yet for me, BTW)?

Throw your own major complaints in the list, but humor me and rank the above factors while you're at it.

[okie52]

You still don't address the environmental issue except for the mention of nuclear. And they still have no solution for handling nuclear waste; although I agree we should continue to research the problem. I certainly do not trust government or industry to guard toxic waste with a 50 thousand year half life. Any energy policy that is just based on production and not on the total picture including the environment is not a policy at all. It is just a continuation of "get it while the gettin's good". If the earth was a giant ball of oil and we only had to drill a few hundred feet to tap an infinite supply, we would all die swimming in our own waste. Or more likely, we would take the issue seriously only after everyone on the planet had to live like the people in Beijing (or Los Angeles!). The only way to get industry to move early is to force them to because they won't do it by themselves. That's no knock on industry as that is the way the market is designed. It is up to regulation to steer it away from the course that only considers supply and ignores any side effects. Pure market dynamics is not a complete plan. If you want to observe a pure, unregulated market, look at organized crime.

They absolutely have a solution for nuclear waste and it was called Yucca which was deemed safe for 10,000 years by the National Academy of Science and was supported by energy sec Chu, 9 US science labs, 4 administrations and 11 congresses. Do you think we might have improvements in 10,000???!!! And, with specifice regard to nuke waste that currently resides at 104 nuke sites around the country, that could be further reduced by over 90% as is being done by France and Japan using our technology by reprocessing/further refining nuke waste...a process that Obama states he is against because further refined would be easier to turn into a weapon should it fall into the wrong hands. So Obama is basically saying that we can't handle the processed waste as well other countries even though it is our technology and the waste would be reduced to 1/10 of what it is now. Brilliant!!!

To the environment I give you the Obama cap and trade plan that passed the house in 2009 that called for a 20% reduction in CO2 by 2020 along with the harmful impact it would have had on our economy. By 2012, WITHOUT CAP AND TRADE, primarily through the use of ng the CO2 output in the US had dropped by close to 20%...down to 1994 levels.

The total environmental picture must be GLOBAL...NOT SOME UNILATERAL POLICY THAT ONLY PUNISHES THE US. China and India have to be on board for any plan to be viable and also not only punish the policy adherents. Here, again, ridiculous policies are working at cross purposes. The US exports coal around the world, particularly to places like China and to a lesser degree India. But Obama would punish only US utilities and US coal consumers with regulations while shipping coal to China for use in their industry that would go untouched by these same regulations.

I'm not against regulations but it had better be ones that cover the globe rather just punishing US industry. And, of course, the regulations need to make sense for the stated purpose unlike giving ethanol a favored fuel status while punishing a non CO2 emitter like nukes. A little logic please.

[Skysooner]

--- The increased production is on private land ----production on public land has declined---How much more production could have been brought on if the public lands were available?

Not as much as you would think. Most of the new unconventional reservoirs are under public lands anyway. My whole job is to look at the reserves in Canada and the US.

[Skysooner]

Obama has done plenty to retard energy growth and harm oil and gas. I know you know this because we've had this discussion before.

Do I need to list them again or are you willing to admit that oil and gas growth in the US has been in spite of Obama?

This energy dumass stepped into office with the stupidest energy agenda I have ever seen in my 40 years in the business. The pass you're giving him by claiming its just rhetoric is an insult to oilies.

All I know is that my company is doing really well, financially I am doing great, and there are high paying oil and gas jobs everywhere. Hard to complain about that.

[REDREX]

Not as much as you would think. Most of the new unconventional reservoirs are under public lands anyway. My whole job is to look at the reserves in Canada and the US.----Since a huge portion of the West is public land-----not to mention off shore is all public land ---I don't agree with you

[BoulderSooner79]

All I know is that my company is doing really well, financially I am doing great, and there are high paying oil and gas jobs everywhere. Hard to complain about that.

This aligns with everything I've been reading about domestic production. And even though I'd love to see fossil fuel usage decline, it will be an integral part of any long term energy mix and producing it domestically is a good thing. As long as that fact doesn't increase usage and discourage alternatives and it doesn't need to. There are many things on the energy front that are quite encouraging from my uneducated view. Increased domestic oil and gas production, gas replacing coal in some power plants, dramatic increase in solar panel installations, more windmill installations, more fuel efficient vehicles, more energy efficient buildings, LED lighting, electric car technology advancing, etc. I'm not crediting the current administration as all of these things have been in the works for a very long time. But I do give credit for not stepping backwards.

[Skysooner]

----Since a huge portion of the West is public land-----not to mention off shore is all public land ---I don't agree with you

Well every credible investment bank disagrees with you. As I said studying this stuff is my job. Been in the industry 32 years with the last 13 with companies that deal exclusively with unconventional reservoirs.

[Skysooner]

This aligns with everything I've been reading about domestic production. And even though I'd love to see fossil fuel usage decline, it will be an integral part of any long term energy mix and producing it domestically is a good thing. As long as that fact doesn't increase usage and discourage alternatives and it doesn't need to. There are many things on the energy front that are quite encouraging from my uneducated view. Increased domestic oil and gas production, gas replacing coal in some power plants, dramatic increase in solar panel installations, more windmill installations, more fuel efficient vehicles, more energy efficient buildings, LED lighting, electric car technology advancing, etc. I'm not crediting the current administration as all of these things have been in the works for a very long time. But I do give credit for not stepping backwards.

I have told my son not to follow me into the business. Eventually renewables will become cost effective enough to counter what will be high cost oil. That could be a very long time though given our new technology. I followed my dad into this business, and he was saying the same things.

[REDREX]

Well every credible investment bank disagrees with you. As I said studying this stuff is my job. Been in the industry 32 years with the last 13 with companies that deal exclusively with unconventional reservoirs.---Not real sure what investment bankers have to do with not drilling on off shore and on shore public land----Could you explain?

[BoulderSooner79]

This aligns with everything I've been reading about domestic production. And even though I'd love to see fossil fuel usage decline, it will be an integral part of any long term energy mix and producing it domestically is a good thing. As long as that fact doesn't increase usage and discourage alternatives and it doesn't need to. There are many things on the energy front that are quite encouraging from my uneducated view. Increased domestic oil and gas production, gas replacing coal in some power plants, dramatic increase in solar panel installations, more windmill installations, more fuel efficient vehicles, more energy efficient buildings, LED lighting, electric car technology advancing, etc. I'm not crediting the current administration as all of these things have been in the works for a very long time. But I do give credit for not stepping backwards.


I have told my son not to follow me into the business. Eventually renewables will become cost effective enough to counter what will be high cost oil. That could be a very long time though given our new technology. I followed my dad into this business, and he was saying the same things.

I suspect your son would be pretty secure following you into the business; as long as he is adaptable as the business changes. As you say, oil costs will continue to rise meaning there will still be lots of money out there chasing fewer barrels. I.e. opportunity ;)

My list above is things that seemed to have advanced relative to 2004 and I fully expect to advance much further by 2024. It's by no means a complete list and I'm sure there will be new surprises in the next decade. And almost all those advances have been fought tooth and nail by someone. I expect that to continue as well, but as long as we remain innovative and determined, progress will prevail.

[okie52]

All I know is that my company is doing really well, financially I am doing great, and there are high paying oil and gas jobs everywhere. Hard to complain about that.

So, evidently, you are giving Obama credit for oilies success and ignoring his harmful energy agenda.

Didn't you vote for Romney less than two years ago because of obama's horrible energy policies?

[okie52]

---Not real sure what investment bankers have to do with not drilling on off shore and on shore public land----Could you explain?

I'm sure investment bankers wouldn't be interested in drilling in the Atlantic or Pacific....can't be any reserves there. Doesn't matter if they were interested...Obama banned it.

[TAFBSooner]

To sum up:

One oilly says petroleum is doing well in the US. He's certainly not giving Obama credit, and in fact says oil's success is at least partly in spite of Obama. And oh by the way, he voted *against* Obama.

The rest of you have now turned on him because he's not 100% on board the "Obama has singlehandedly brought on the New Dark Ages" train.



Boilerplate from Turd in 3 . . 2 . . 1

[REDREX]

No ---To sum up---- if you think Barack is on the right track on energy policy-----Don't bitch about the prices you are paying

[Skysooner]

---Not real sure what investment bankers have to do with not drilling on off shore and on shore public land----Could you explain?

Sure. Scotia Bank and ITG have reserach arms that do analysis on reservoirs all over the continent. I do similar research but with different data. They have access to the companies working in individual plays. There is lots of data on profitability, etc. My focus is on rock quality and production. Both were done independently and agree very well. One of the big states that is federally held is Nevada. The unconventional production there is not good at all. Offshore is a different story and there I agree with you. Just saying that all of the data suggests that the vast majority of future production is on public lands.

[Skysooner]

So, evidently, you are giving Obama credit for oilies success and ignoring his harmful energy agenda.

Didn't you vote for Romney less than two years ago because of obama's horrible energy policies?

Energy was a small part of it. Honestly I thought that Romney would turn on the conservative wing of his party once he won. There are other reasons not to like Obama besides energy. I am just not as angry as many of you.

[okie52]

Sure. Scotia Bank and ITG have reserach arms that do analysis on reservoirs all over the continent. I do similar research but with different data. They have access to the companies working in individual plays. There is lots of data on profitability, etc. My focus is on rock quality and production. Both were done independently and agree very well. One of the big states that is federally held is Nevada. The unconventional production there is not good at all. Offshore is a different story and there I agree with you. Just saying that all of the data suggests that the vast majority of future production is on public lands.

Don't you mean private lands? Public lands would be the case against Obama since fed permits are about 1/3 of where they were 5 years ago.

[okie52]

Energy was a small part of it. Honestly I thought that Romney would turn on the conservative wing of his party once he won. There are other reasons not to like Obama besides energy. I am just not as angry as many of you.

I think Obama was horrible on energy when he took office. I still think he is bad but some realities have begun to sink into his administration.

As time went on Obama started to recognize that low energy costs and a shrinking trade deficit would boost the economy and that was happening primarily due to oil and gas, not his green energy fantasy. You also had a pub house elected in 2010 so a lot of Obama's agenda was never going to see the light of day.

I haven't blamed Obama for the economy in his 1st 4 years other than primarily his bad energy agenda. He inherited a bad economy. I do think he has ownership since his 2nd term began.

I'm not really that angry. I just vomit when I hear Obama and any coherent energy agenda being mentioned in the same breath.

[okie52]

To sum up:

One oilly says petroleum is doing well in the US. He's certainly not giving Obama credit, and in fact says oil's success is at least partly in spite of Obama. And oh by the way, he voted *against* Obama.

The rest of you have now turned on him because he's not 100% on board the "Obama has singlehandedly brought on the New Dark Ages" train.



Boilerplate from Turd in 3 . . 2 . . 1

To sum it up:

Some believe Obama has only spouted harmful rhetoric on energy while others believe it was much more than that.

[Skysooner]

Don't you mean private lands? Public lands would be the case against Obama since fed permits are about 1/3 of where they were 5 years ago.

Yes private lands. Sorry. I'm sitting in a conference in Chicago killing time.

[Sooner8th]

Yes private lands. Sorry. I'm sitting in a conference in Chicago killing time.

If you're killing time at a conference, shouldn't you be in a bar?

[Skysooner]

If you're killing time at a conference, shouldn't you be in a bar?

That's what I am doing now. Conference was on spread options trading.

[champions77]

Gosh isn't this what you get when you have a President that despises the Free Market and capitalism in general? He'd done everything possible to create uncertainty for businesses in this country, from increased regulations, to unleashing the EPA thugs, to increased taxes, stonewalling on the Keystone pipeline to Obamacare to Cap and Trade? Now he wants to increase the minimum wage?

It's if he wants more people dependent on the federal government. Oh wait?

[Turd_Ferguson]

What do you expect, he's a ****'n *******.

[BoulderSooner79]

Gosh isn't this what you get when you have a President that despises the Free Market and capitalism in general? He'd done everything possible to create uncertainty for businesses in this country, from increased regulations, to unleashing the EPA thugs, to increased taxes, stonewalling on the Keystone pipeline to Obamacare to Cap and Trade? Now he wants to increase the minimum wage?

It's if he wants more people dependent on the federal government. Oh wait?

Standard conservative spin to blame the current administration for things that have been going on for decades. There is ZERO data behind whether these things are bad or good - just emotional reaction. Here is a link from someone with a different perspective on minimum wage and the separation of wealth in general. I haven't really thought about minimum wage laws, but I certainly agree with this guy that the separation of wealth is out of control. The DATA is undeniable. I don't have an answer how to address it, but the facts are this nation used to do much better in this department and a purely unregulated market will not address it - it will only make it worse. I tend to put some weight in what this guy says because he's had a knack for identifying trends and seeing the big picture. So much so, it has made him a billionaire.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6-c2RYWk98

[yermom]

That's what I don't get. I didn't read the whole article, but "job creators" still need consumers with disposable income.

They also need a relatively happy and stable populous to actually enjoy their lifestyle

[Eielson]

Apparently you guys are unappreciative of Obama's finger banging skills.

[Sooner8th]

Standard conservative spin to blame the current administration for things that have been going on for decades. There is ZERO data behind whether these things are bad or good - just emotional reaction. Here is a link from someone with a different perspective on minimum wage and the separation of wealth in general. I haven't really thought about minimum wage laws, but I certainly agree with this guy that the separation of wealth is out of control. The DATA is undeniable. I don't have an answer how to address it, but the facts are this nation used to do much better in this department and a purely unregulated market will not address it - it will only make it worse. I tend to put some weight in what this guy says because he's had a knack for identifying trends and seeing the big picture. So much so, it has made him a billionaire.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6-c2RYWk98

I read the article and the last part of the last line is the most important - it’s that we’ll most certainly get even richer. This guy understands that if the middle class and poor have more money to spend the economy grows faster and the rich get richer. It might take more time, but in the long run it works. There is data to back his points. When the top's percentage of wealth grows, the gpd shrinks, look at pre-1980 and since. The more conservatives fight unions and minimum wages to keep wages down, the less consumers have to spend. This is why trickle down supply side "economics" doesn't work. As for taxing the wealthy, if there was only a way to test if raising taxes on the "job creators" kills job growth and cutting taxes to them helps job growth. OH wait a minute, there is - under bush taxes were cut to "job creators" and the economy LOST 825,000 private sector jobs and when taxes went up for the "job creators" we have been adding around 200,000 private sector jobs A MONTH. So much for that argument.

Remember, unions and minimum wages drive up wages in general.

[okie52]

Standard conservative spin to blame the current administration for things that have been going on for decades. There is ZERO data behind whether these things are bad or good - just emotional reaction. Here is a link from someone with a different perspective on minimum wage and the separation of wealth in general. I haven't really thought about minimum wage laws, but I certainly agree with this guy that the separation of wealth is out of control. The DATA is undeniable. I don't have an answer how to address it, but the facts are this nation used to do much better in this department and a purely unregulated market will not address it - it will only make it worse. I tend to put some weight in what this guy says because he's had a knack for identifying trends and seeing the big picture. So much so, it has made him a billionaire.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6-c2RYWk98

So obviously we need minimum wage to be raised to at least $30 an hour so we can "double" our fun. $60 would even be better.

Other than there's that pesky little issue of global competition.

[REDREX]

I think that it is funny that some people believe that you can hire a person for min wage that you would give more than a very min amount of responsibility

[olevetonahill]

I think that it is funny that some people believe that you can hire a person for min wage that you would give more than a very min amount of responsibility

Yup the ones who only make minimum wage are the ones who pick up trash or ask if ya want fries with that.

[BoulderSooner79]

So obviously we need minimum wage to be raised to at least $30 an hour so we can "double" our fun. $60 would even be better.

Other than there's that pesky little issue of global competition.

The guy didn't say that. In fact, mixing $15/hr and talking about middle class in the same article was a weak point, IMO. Anyone here think $15/hr = middle class? The main take away I got out of it is that the current system of loading up all the wealth into the hands of a very few is doomed to collapse. And there is plenty of history behind that observation. It was refreshing to see someone who has benefitted greatly from the system to be able to look at it from a distance. Now that the very wealthy have also accumulated all the power too, it will take a grassroots effort that includes them to make any meaningful changes. I don't have a lot of hope for that. I'm been pondering this question for a while now and I always assumed that they would just move out of this country to greener (heh) pastures when this system played out.

[Sooner8th]

So obviously we need minimum wage to be raised to at least $30 an hour so we can "double" our fun. $60 would even be better.

Other than there's that pesky little issue of global competition.

Just another silly nonsensical conservative argument. No one is talking about raising it to $30 an hour. Under that same argument, why not let gun nuts have nuclear weapons?

Global competition doesn't seem to hurt the salaries of the CEO's.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Just another silly nonsensical conservative argument. No one is talking about raising it to $30 an hour. Under that same argument, why not let gun nuts have nuclear weapons?

Global competition doesn't seem to hurt the salaries of the CEO's.


So, where do you cap it? 17...20...23?

[olevetonahill]

So, where do you cap it? 17...20...23?

Turd, when Ya have to pay some one 15 er 20 bucks an hour to simply pick up trash then that 15 er 20 dollars aint worth very much.

[okie52]

The guy didn't say that. In fact, mixing $15/hr and talking about middle class in the same article was a weak point, IMO. Anyone here think $15/hr = middle class? The main take away I got out of it is that the current system of loading up all the wealth into the hands of a very few is doomed to collapse. And there is plenty of history behind that observation. It was refreshing to see someone who has benefitted greatly from the system to be able to look at it from a distance. Now that the very wealthy have also accumulated all the power too, it will take a grassroots effort that includes them to make any meaningful changes. I don't have a lot of hope for that. I'm been pondering this question for a while now and I always assumed that they would just move out of this country to greener (heh) pastures when this system played out.

No, $15 an hour isn't middle class but it would certainly, ultimately, push middle class wages up. I'm not against that or even a minimum wage increase but it would only work in areas that aren't facing outside competition that are at a lower rates. Having your work force be skilled and educated is the best way to insure good wages.

[Sooner8th]

So, where do you cap it? 17...20...23?

again, too funny. No one is talking making it 17 20 23

In 2013, President Obama proposed an increase in the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9. Last night, the president proposed increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10.

He signed the executive order for federal contracts at $10.10.

How about those nuclear weapons for gun nuts?

[okie52]

Just another silly nonsensical conservative argument. No one is talking about raising it to $30 an hour. Under that same argument, why not let gun nuts have nuclear weapons?

Global competition doesn't seem to hurt the salaries of the CEO's.

Please try to not show your ignorance on the week that we celebrate our Independence.

Outsourcing...ever figure out why that happens Einstein?

[olevetonahill]

Why is Breaking the Law when Madoff,Et all Scam folks but when the Gov. Does it its Only stimulation the economy?

[BoulderSooner79]

So, where do you cap it? 17...20...23?

Obviously that number changes as the value of the dollar changes. But a good metric might be the point where folks stop collecting food stamps.

I haven't given a lot of thought to minimum wage. At the time I was making it, minimum wage was generally used for teenagers who were still depending on their parents for life's basics such as room and board. It gave teens a way to buy gas and movie tickets, not intended for adults supporting themselves. The fact it's a big issue now may reflect a basic weakness in the economy that adults are getting jobs that pay that low. The authors example of Seattle and San Franciso having the highest minimum wage could just reflect the fact the economies there are thriving and people have more choice in the jobs they take. But at least it is a couple of data points and not just spewing ideology.

[Turd_Ferguson]

again, too funny. No one is talking making it 17 20 23

In 2013, President Obama proposed an increase in the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $9. Last night, the president proposed increasing the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10.

He signed the executive order for federal contracts at $10.10.

How about those nuclear weapons for gun nuts?

So, 7.25 to 9 then to 10.10. 15, 17, 20, 23...???

Your nuke/gun nut tactic sounds as retarded as you are.

[BoulderSooner79]

No, $15 an hour isn't middle class but it would certainly, ultimately, push middle class wages up. I'm not against that or even a minimum wage increase but it would only work in areas that aren't facing outside competition that are at a lower rates. Having your work force be skilled and educated is the best way to insure good wages.

Totally agree! Again, I like the article because of the overall observation about separation of wealth going too far. The minimum wage issue seems like a small part of the equation. But I've seen his facts about the acceleration the wealth divide presented many different ways, but they all point to it starting about 35 years ago and really accelerating the last 10 years. At some point, that trend has to break and it's hard to see it being an easy segue.

[okie52]

Totally agree! Again, I like the article because of the overall observation about separation of wealth going too far. The minimum wage issue seems like a small part of the equation. But I've seen his facts about the acceleration the wealth divide presented many different ways, but they all point to it starting about 35 years ago and really accelerating the last 10 years. At some point, that trend has to break and it's hard to see it being an easy segue.

I read the article and found that he gave a good, informed viewpoint. I don't remember him suggesting raising taxes on the rich but I could have missed that. Would $15 an hour be a sustainable income in Seattle? That's $31,200 a year if the worker billed for every day. Of course, if he/she is married then they could max $62,400 as family....but then you have kid costs.

[Sooner8th]

So, 7.25 to 9 then to 10.10. 15, 17, 20, 23...???

Your nuke/gun nut tactic sounds as retarded as you are.

You ignorance and stupidity know no bounds. This is a straw man argument.

Let me talk slow and use small words, first you get to own assault rifles, then machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, nuclear weapons...???

See pumpkin?

[Sooner8th]

Please try to not show your ignorance on the week that we celebrate our Independence.

Outsourcing...ever figure out why that happens Einstein?

OK, try to follow. The minimum wage at which obama is proposing is from $7.25 to $10.10. Now that will effect mostly service workers:

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/07/MinimunWageTable.png

Now most of these cannot be outsourced so there goes that argument. Now it will drive up some of the wages right above them, but not too far up the chain. What was being discussed global competition. CEO's have global competition, my point was it doesn't always effect wages.

[BoulderSooner79]

I read the article and found that he gave a good, informed viewpoint. I don't remember him suggesting raising taxes on the rich but I could have missed that. Would $15 an hour be a sustainable income in Seattle? That's $31,200 a year if the worker billed for every day. Of course, if he/she is married then they could max $62,400 as family....but then you have kid costs.

It's just one article and the subject was minimum wage, so he had to stick to the theme. He did throw in one mention about "tax cuts for the wealthy not doing much good". I get the impression this guy is trying to rally the wealthy and I expect him to write about more subjects. With the basic theme of "we've got it really good, so let's not ruin it by milking the cow dry". I really like seeing some out of the box thinking instead of the tired political themes that are not backed by history or data.

[Sooner8th]

It's just one article and the subject was minimum wage, so he had to stick to the theme. He did throw in one mention about "tax cuts for the wealthy not doing much good". I get the impression this guy is trying to rally the wealthy and I expect him to write about more subjects. With the basic theme of "we've got it really good, so let's not ruin it by milking the cow dry". I really like seeing some out of the box thinking instead of the tired political themes that are not backed by history or data.

Good summation of it. I was watching some show on John D. Rockefeller and how he fought the breakup of standard oil. At the end of it they interviewed Jay Rockefeller and he was laughing about how John D. made more money than ever after they broke up. I think the same would be true if the CEO's would be willing to take less and pay their people more. One thing we have not talked about is how much productivity has gone up without wages going up at the same pace.

[okie52]

OK, try to follow. The minimum wage at which obama is proposing is from $7.25 to $10.10. Now that will effect mostly service workers:

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2013/07/MinimunWageTable.png

Now most of these cannot be outsourced so there goes that argument. Now it will drive up some of the wages right above them, but not too far up the chain. What was being discussed global competition. CEO's have global competition, my point was it doesn't always effect* wages.

*affect

I was talking to BoulderSooner79 about $15 minimum wage in Seattle...not about Obama's proposed minimum wage which I could care less about.

There would be a lot more industries involved that would be affected by a $15 minimum wage than for the 10.10 obama minimum wage.

However, from your unlinked source:

People at or below the federal minimum are:

Disproportionately young: 50.6% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
Mostly (78%) white; fully half are white women.
Largely part-time workers (64% of the total).

Young, primarily white women, part time workers. A very small part of the workforce at 7.25 an hour. But when you raise it to 10.10 you are going to include a much larger part of the workforce including a lot of farm labor (750,000) that averages about $9 an hour now that will all be receiving wage increases. Go to $15 an hour and it is a much bigger part of the workforce with considerably more impact.

[BoulderSooner79]

I read the article and found that he gave a good, informed viewpoint. I don't remember him suggesting raising taxes on the rich but I could have missed that. Would $15 an hour be a sustainable income in Seattle? That's $31,200 a year if the worker billed for every day. Of course, if he/she is married then they could max $62,400 as family....but then you have kid costs.

Don't know about Seattle, but I live on the San Francisco peninsula and a 1 bedroom condo goes for north of $2500/month. So a married couple with no kids would be spending half their income just to rent minimal digs. And minimum wage jobs usual don't come with health insurance. I guess that's why big cities are passing local higher minimum wage laws and not waiting for the feds who have to average in the living cost of say, rural Mississippi.

[Sooner8th]

*affect

I was talking to BoulderSooner79 about $15 minimum wage in Seattle...not about Obama's proposed minimum wage which I could care less about.

There would be a lot more industries involved that would be affected by a $15 minimum wage than for the 10.10 obama minimum wage.

However, from your unlinked source:

People at or below the federal minimum are:

Disproportionately young: 50.6% are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers (ages 16 to 19).
Mostly (78%) white; fully half are white women.
Largely part-time workers (64% of the total).

Young, primarily white women, part time workers. A very small part of the workforce at 7.25 an hour. But when you raise it to 10.10 you are going to include a much larger part of the workforce including a lot of farm labor (750,000) that averages about $9 an hour now that will all be receiving wage increases. Go to $15 an hour and it is a much bigger part of the workforce with considerably more impact.

In Seattle it's phased in starting '17 up to '21.

*affect - thanks

[TheHumanAlphabet]

He signed the executive order for federal contracts at $10.10.


And the fast food companies are now looking to leave military bases and other gov't property because of the increased pay rates.

I would love a nuke, can you get me one?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I aint got a Clue what that is. This conservative says Take care of the country 1st and quit with all the special interest groups.Yep. The govt. should do what it's supposed to do according to our laws. Corruption and crony capitalism(kickbacks and favoritism by govt.)are not desired

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well then. Which region of the world do you want this country to be more like? Latin America? Asia and China? Africa?

Globalization of economies does not explain Obama's pathetic national energy policy. It does not explain his total abdication on border security. It does not explain his weak attempt to control health care. And please explain the dichotomy between your assertion that everything is becoming global and Obama's foreign policy of withdrawing from the world stage.

All cultures and societies are NOT equal. And the vapid belief by the globalists that we can somehow prop up the stone age societies around the world by lowering our standard of living will prove a miserable failure as the economic engines that have driven invention and industry for the past 300 years begin to collapse under the weight of carrying around all the dead weight of these backward societies.well said

[champions77]

Standard conservative spin to blame the current administration for things that have been going on for decades. There is ZERO data behind whether these things are bad or good - just emotional reaction. Here is a link from someone with a different perspective on minimum wage and the separation of wealth in general. I haven't really thought about minimum wage laws, but I certainly agree with this guy that the separation of wealth is out of control. The DATA is undeniable. I don't have an answer how to address it, but the facts are this nation used to do much better in this department and a purely unregulated market will not address it - it will only make it worse. I tend to put some weight in what this guy says because he's had a knack for identifying trends and seeing the big picture. So much so, it has made him a billionaire.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U6-c2RYWk98

Don't you think maybe that a poor economy, which drives more people to government assistance, thus keeps more folks in the lower income brackets, also lessens that chance that they will work their way up the economic ladder? One of the great things about America in the past is that you could travel up...and sometime down if you were not wise, the classes. Most folks are not static in that they stay in a class forever. Not as true today because we do not have a robust economy that is growing. Growth leads to labor demands, and opportunities. That's what makes this minimum wage issue such a folly. It was never meant to be a "living wage", just like Social Security was never meant to be the sole means of your retirement income. It is unskilled labor that's demand emanates from businesses that typically have a low profit margin. Does anyone think that a burger joint that paid all of it's employees $15 a hour could survive in the market place? Only if a lot of customers were willing to pay $20 for a burger.

Since the 1% folks pay about 35% of all federal income taxes paid, and the top 10% pay 70%, don't you think that they are indeed paying their "fair" share?

Is the fact that this "income inequality" is never more evident than under the Presidency of BHO make him accountable for some of this concern?

[BoulderSooner79]

Since the 1% folks pay about 35% of all federal income taxes paid, and the top 10% pay 70%, don't you think that they are indeed paying their "fair" share?

Is the fact that this "income inequality" is never more evident than under the Presidency of BHO make him accountable for some of this concern?

You have to be careful of stats as I've seen them presented many ways. I've also seen stats showing that a great majority of government services are dedicated to the rich. Think about how much of the court system and law enforcement is directed toward property rights. We've had more progressive taxes in the past that slowed the wealth divide and didn't slow a thriving economy. But as I said, it's been going on for 35 years and accelerated in the last 10. It slowed during the 90's with a booming economy and more progressive tax policy, but it was increasing even then. It has surged in the last 10 because of the Bush tax cuts, the real estate bubble and the federal reserve printing press. There is a long list of name that have either aided, or at least didn't help, the income divide over 35 years. And it includes a lot more players than just presidents.

Maybe all this is inevitable and a system with a dominate middle class is just not sustainable. But I tend to agree with this author that a thriving middle class is the economic engine and we shouldn't give up on the idea. Middle class people work, pay their taxes and put effort into raising their kids to be good citizens and to contribute to society. People that can barely put food on the table don't have time for higher ideals and if they don't have a path up the ladder, they'll get discouraged and fall into government assistance. Note: none of this has much to do with minimum wage. The fact it is even an issue shows a problem in the labor market that working adults are taking jobs that should be below them.

[champions77]

You have to be careful of stats as I've seen them presented many ways. I've also seen stats showing that a great majority of government services are dedicated to the rich. Think about how much of the court system and law enforcement is directed toward property rights. We've had more progressive taxes in the past that slowed the wealth divide and didn't slow a thriving economy. But as I said, it's been going on for 35 years and acceleraited in the last 10. It slowed during the 90's with a booming economy and more progressive tax policy, but it was increasing even then. It has surged in the last 10 because of the Bush tax cuts, the real estate bubble and the federal reserve printing press. There is a long list of name that have either aided, or at least didn't help, the income divide over 35 years. And it includes a lot more players than just presidents.

Maybe all this is inevitable and a system with a dominate middle class is just not sustainable. But I tend to agree with this author that a thriving middle class is the economic engine and we shouldn't give up on the idea. Middle class people work, pay their taxes and put effort into raising their kids to be good citizens and to contribute to society. People that can barely put food on the table don't have time for higher ideals and if they don't have a path up the ladder, they'll get discouraged and fall into government assistance. Note: none of this has much to do with minimum wage. The fact it is even an issue shows a problem in the labor market that working adults are taking jobs that should be below them.

I hope you do
Not subscribe to the idea that the only way to income equality, which we have never had in the country, is to inact punitive taxes on the wealthy. That will guarantee two things, that the projected income from higher taxes from the wealthy will not be realized, and that there is not enough wealth that can be extracted from the wealthy to affect the incomes of the poor. Too few of the wealthy and too many poor people. Nevertheless this highly flawed concept continues to be promoted by the left as an answer to this concern.

[BoulderSooner79]

I hope you do
Not subscribe to the idea that the only way to income equality, which we have never had in the country, is to inact punitive taxes on the wealthy. That will guarantee two things, that the projected income from higher taxes from the wealthy will not be realized, and that there is not enough wealth that can be extracted from the wealthy to affect the incomes of the poor. Too few of the wealthy and too many poor people. Nevertheless this highly flawed concept continues to be promoted by the left as an answer to this concern.

One man's punitive tax is another man's progressive tax. We've had progressive taxes that worked, we've had them go too far. Reagan was right to pull them in because they had gone too far. But he went too far the other way and even he realized that and started raising them again. Bush 41 increased a bit more and seemed to have them about right, but got blamed for the economy because the effects take time. Tax rates were close to fair during Clinton's term and he benefitted a lot from what Bush 41 had done. And Clinton was a centrist by any historical definition except for how our polarized, extreme society defines things today. Bush 43 slashed taxes in a way that benefitted the wealthy the most while spending like a drunken sailor. That sent an already large deficit into the stratosphere and accelerated the wealth divide greatly. Then came all the fed stimulus under Obama to try to avoid a deeper recession, and a large portion of that money went directly to the big stock holders. So effectively the fed is now ringing up a huge debt on all citizens and handing the proceeds to the wealthy. Makes sense.

I work in high tech in silicon valley and know many wealthy people and some extremely wealthy people. For the most part, they are not job creators, they just got lucky. They are solid working people that earn their pay, but did not do anything that deserved a guaranteed life of excess. And they would have done the exact same thing and come out pretty well off if their tax brackets were a bit higher. I also know a few that were truly job creators and they too would have done the exact same thing if their taxes had been 90%! The true job creators in my field are passionate maniacs and they don't do it for the money. (At least not at first, and no, I'm not suggesting 90% tax brackets).

[champions77]

One man's punitive tax is another man's progressive tax. We've had progressive taxes that worked, we've had them go too far. Reagan was right to pull them in because they had gone too far. But he went too far the other way and even he realized that and started raising them again. Bush 41 increased a bit more and seemed to have them about right, but got blamed for the economy because the effects take time. Tax rates were close to fair during Clinton's term and he benefitted a lot from what Bush 41 had done. And Clinton was a centrist by any historical definition except for how our polarized, extreme society defines things today. Bush 43 slashed taxes in a way that benefitted the wealthy the most while spending like a drunken sailor. That sent an already large deficit into the stratosphere and accelerated the wealth divide greatly. Then came all the fed stimulus under Obama to try to avoid a deeper recession, and a large portion of that money went directly to the big stock holders. So effectively the fed is now ringing up a huge debt on all citizens and handing the proceeds to the wealthy. Makes sense.

I work in high tech in silicon valley and know many wealthy people and some extremely wealthy people. For the most part, they are not job creators, they just got lucky. They are solid working people that earn their pay, but did not do anything that deserved a guaranteed life of excess. And they would have done the exact same thing and come out pretty well off if their tax brackets were a bit higher. I also know a few that were truly job creators and they too would have done the exact same thing if their taxes had been 90%! The true job creators in my field are passionate maniacs and they don't do it for the money. (At least not at first, and no, I'm not suggesting 90% tax brackets).


Most folks would not mind giving up part of their paycheck if they knew the Feds spent it wisely. Unfortunately they waste trillions. And when a politician tries to reign in some of the spending, he's trying to roll Granny over the cliff in her wheelchair, or he's trying to starve little kids. That's what makes the future look so gloomy. How will we ever stop the waste?

[Sooner8th]

ruh roh - 288,000 jobs added LAST MONTH. 6.1% unemployment rate

Bush 825,000 lost over eight years, tell me again how bad of a job he is doing.

[olevetonahill]

ruh roh - 288,000 jobs added LAST MONTH. 6.1% unemployment rate

Bush 825,000 lost over eight years, tell me again how bad of a job he is doing.


Just cant help yourself can ya.

[Sooner8th]

Just cant help yourself can ya.


What part isn't true? 288k jobs in one month.

Now with the black lining on the silver cloud.

[olevetonahill]

Heres yer article READ it Moran

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-s--economy-adds-288-000-jobs-in-june-131211639.html



At the same time, one month’s data cannot change the big picture of a U.S. economy and labor market operating below full strength.

The percentage of people either working or looking for work – known as the labor force participation rate – remains near a 30-year low at 62.8%. An aging population seems to have something to do with this shift, but certainly it also reflects a significant pool of discouraged and unwillingly idled workers following the trauma of the Great Recession.

Yes, job growth continues to be concentrated in lower-paying service jobs at restaurants, retail stores and temp agencies. Many skeptics contend this indicates the economy and job growth is still wobbly. But these are the positions through which the unemployed typically re-enter the active workforce.

[olevetonahill]

What part isn't true? 288k jobs in one month.

Now with the black lining on the silver cloud.

Bashin Bush Nimrod, No matter what you post you make disparaging remarks about W. Did he **** your mother in front of you or what?

[jiminy]

Coincidentally, I've noticed a sharp uptick in the number of unsolicited marketing/sales calls on my answering machine

[BoulderSooner79]

Most folks would not mind giving up part of their paycheck if they knew the Feds spent it wisely. Unfortunately they waste trillions. And when a politician tries to reign in some of the spending, he's trying to roll Granny over the cliff in her wheelchair, or he's trying to starve little kids. That's what makes the future look so gloomy. How will we ever stop the waste?

^This exactly. And I would claim the problem is more corruption than waste. Much of the waste is because someone has a special interest to keep those waste dollars flowing. And if a politician isn't accused of rolling Granny off a cliff, then he's accused of giving Al Qaeda an invitation for the next 9/11. So what is the result of this cut taxes/keep spending policy? More wealth for the wealthy, of course. If you have wealth, you can move your resources around between stocks, different currencies, precious metals, etc. And you probably have a paid professional doing this for you on a full time basis. But if you depend on a paycheck for your income, you have little defense because you don't have the money in your hands yet. You can only hope you get enough raises to counter the falling value of those future dollars (and that you keep your job).

[REDREX]

What part isn't true? 288k jobs in one month.

Now with the black lining on the silver cloud.---Yep if you like low paying part time jobs Barack is the man

[Sooner8th]

Heres yer article READ it Moran

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-s--economy-adds-288-000-jobs-in-june-131211639.html


At the same time, one month’s data cannot change the big picture of a U.S. economy and labor market operating below full strength.

The percentage of people either working or looking for work – known as the labor force participation rate – remains near a 30-year low at 62.8%. An aging population seems to have something to do with this shift, but certainly it also reflects a significant pool of discouraged and unwillingly idled workers following the trauma of the Great Recession.

Yes, job growth continues to be concentrated in lower-paying service jobs at restaurants, retail stores and temp agencies. Many skeptics contend this indicates the economy and job growth is still wobbly. But these are the positions through which the unemployed typically re-enter the active workforce.

labor force participation rate peaked in 2000 and has fallen ever since - WHOOPS oh darn How is an aging population obamas fault? HUH?

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/07/participation%20rate%20June.jpg

growth continues to be concentrated in lower-paying service jobs at restaurants, retail stores and temp agencies
is typical of recovery jobs - reentering into the work force.

AGAIN OBAMA 288k one month - The May payroll number was revised up from plus 217,000 jobs to plus 224,000. April’s employment number was also revised from 282,000 jobs added to 304,000. Total employment gains those months were therefore 29,000 higher than BLS — a division of the Department of Labor — previously reported. Job growth averaged 272,000 for the last three months.

A hell of a lot better than the policies you want to implement that are the same as bush's that LOST 825,000 private sectors jobs in 8 years.

[Sooner8th]

---Yep if you like low paying part time jobs Barack is the man

If you like losing PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS AND ADDING GOVERNMENT JOBS BUSH IS YOUR MAN!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AND HE IS - YOU DUMBASSES VOTED FOR HIM I DIDN'T

And hey - what happened to any job is better than no job?

TOO FUNNY!!!

[Sooner8th]

Bashin Bush Nimrod, No matter what you post you make disparaging remarks about W. Did he **** your mother in front of you or what?

Who made disparaging remarks? Just stating facts.

Do you not understand the same policies you and your party want to implement are the very policies that cost us 825,000 private sector jobs during his failed presidency.

and **** you for bringing my mom into it, you have no shame, nor can you argue points - just call names like a school boy pu$$y.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Mmmmm....Barack...Mmmmm...cough cough gobble gobble smack smack gobble cough cough Mmmm lick lick lick...gargle...swallow

Disgusting!

[Turd_Ferguson]

Mmmmm...one more time Barack...please?...Mmmmm kiss kiss lick lick

Lovely.

[Sooner8th]

Lovely.

Changing my posts is all you got? LOSER!

[Turd_Ferguson]

Changing my posts is all you got? LOSER!

Nice try.

[Sooner8th]

Nice try.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA LOSER. No facts just ignorance.

[champions77]

ruh roh - 288,000 jobs added LAST MONTH. 6.1% unemployment rate

Bush 825,000 lost over eight years, tell me again how bad of a job he is doing.

Wow you never give up do you? Now read my lips "The Obama economy has the lowest labor participation rate since 1979" That's all you need to know. Ask yourself as hostile as this Administration is to business, especially small business, could there ever be a strong economy? He's done everything in his power to undermine businesses and create the uncertainty that businesses hate. This economy is adding jobs "despite" him. W had much better economic numbers that your hero has. And he damn sure didn't have 50 million Americans on food stamps either.

Gosh if only he had run even a lemonade stand when he was a kid, he would probably have some appreciation for the challenges business owners have to endure every day. Obama once said that he would spend every waking hour devoted to the economy. Kind of like OJ was going to search the end of earth for the killer of his ex wife. Same deal.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Wow you never give up do you? Now read my lips "The Obama economy has the lowest labor participation rate since 1979" That's all you need to know. Ask yourself as hostile as this Administration is to business, especially small business, could there ever be a strong economy? He's done everything in his power to undermine businesses and create the uncertainty that businesses hate. This economy is adding jobs "despite" him. W had much better economic numbers that your hero has. And he damn sure didn't have 50 million Americans on food stamps either.

Gosh if only he had run even a lemonade stand when he was a kid, he would probably have some appreciation for the challenges business owners have to endure every day. Obama once said that he would spend every waking hour devoted to the economy. Kind of like OJ was going to search the end of earth for the killer of his ex wife. Same deal.

ZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!HHHHHHaaaaaaaaaaaahahhahahahhahah aha....8th is such a dip****! Hahahahhahahhahaha

[Sooner8th]

Wow you never give up do you? Now read my lips "The Obama economy has the lowest labor participation rate since 1979" That's all you need to know. Ask yourself as hostile as this Administration is to business, especially small business, could there ever be a strong economy? He's done everything in his power to undermine businesses and create the uncertainty that businesses hate. This economy is adding jobs "despite" him. W had much better economic numbers that your hero has. And he damn sure didn't have 50 million Americans on food stamps either.

Gosh if only he had run even a lemonade stand when he was a kid, he would probably have some appreciation for the challenges business owners have to endure every day. Obama once said that he would spend every waking hour devoted to the economy. Kind of like OJ was going to search the end of earth for the killer of his ex wife. Same deal.

OK and read the article - ageing of the population could have an effect on it. Of course there are people dropping out, there are not enough jobs. You, of course are ignoring my point - PRESIDENT Barack Hussein Obama is cleaning the floor up on jobs compared to the guy you and yours voted for TWICE. Yet you continue to hammer Obama on jobs.

5.5 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS UNDER OBAMA

-825 THOUSAND PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS LOST UNDER BUSH

W had much better economic numbers that your hero has. Is a ****ing lie. You are just making **** up. Bush 1.67% average gdp growth Obama 2.0 average gdp growth through 2013. Surplus to deficits.

He has a hell of a lot better idea than the guy you voted for, TWICE!

Keep voting republican!

[Sooner8th]

ZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!HHHHHHaaaaaaaaaaaahahhahahahhahah aha....8th is such a dip****! Hahahahhahahhahaha

ZIG? Keep ignoring facts.

More people are employed in the private sector than were under bush. What would these look like if there was not 1,000,000 public sector jobs eliminated under Obama?

He is doing EXACTLY what you want, adding private sector jobs, lowering public sector jobs, quit bitching!

[olevetonahill]

Who made disparaging remarks? Just stating facts.

Do you not understand the same policies you and your party want to implement are the very policies that cost us 825,000 private sector jobs during his failed presidency.


and **** you for bringing my mom into it, you have no shame, nor can you argue points - just call names like a school boy pu$$y.

Im sorry he musta Banged your Mom AND your sister then wiped his dick on your shirt.

[Sooner8th]

Im sorry he musta Banged your Mom AND your sister then wiped his dick on your shirt.

Go **** yourself loser *******.

[olevetonahill]

Go **** yourself loser *******.

http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/LOLAlot.gif

[REDREX]

If you like losing PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS AND ADDING GOVERNMENT JOBS BUSH IS YOUR MAN!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AND HE IS - YOU DUMBASSES VOTED FOR HIM I DIDN'T

And hey - what happened to any job is better than no job?

TOO FUNNY!!!------I would watch who I called a dumbass you arrogant little prick

[champions77]

OK and read the article - ageing of the population could have an effect on it. Of course there are people dropping out, there are not enough jobs. You, of course are ignoring my point - PRESIDENT Barack Hussein Obama is cleaning the floor up on jobs compared to the guy you and yours voted for TWICE. Yet you continue to hammer Obama on jobs.

5.5 MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS UNDER OBAMA

-825 THOUSAND PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS LOST UNDER BUSH

W had much better economic numbers that your hero has. Is a ****ing lie. You are just making **** up. Bush 1.67% average gdp growth Obama 2.0 average gdp growth through 2013. Surplus to deficits.

He has a hell of a lot better idea than the guy you voted for, TWICE!

Keep voting republican!

This recovery after a recession is the worst in 70 years. I don't know what alternate universe you live in but if this recovery is acceptable to you, then that answers how and why you could be pleased with BHO's job performance.

[Sooner8th]

This recovery after a recession is the worst in 70 years. I don't know what alternate universe you live in but if this recovery is acceptable to you, then that answers how and why you could be pleased with BHO's job performance.

Then get the ****ing republicans out of his way. Did the other recoveries have debt ceiling limits fights? Did the other recoveries have government shut downs? Did the other recoveries have spending cuts? NO!

Of course this is not acceptable to me, but i understand he has a party against him doing everything they can to ensure the economy fails. This economy is a HELL of a lot better off than if republican trickle down, supply side "economics" were being followed. EVERYTHING the republicans said about jobs is completely wrong, Obamacare will kill job creation, they have grown. Raising taxes on the "job creators" will kill job creation, they have grown even faster since their taxes were raised.

All your party has is trickle down, supply side "economics" and it does not work. That is why I keep comparing back to bush, same policies you and your party want in institute now. It has not worked since your party adopted it. The hated by the right Jimmy Carter had more jobs created per year than reagan. Clinton had more jobs per year than reagan or bush l. Obama has more jobs per year than bush ll. reagan had higher deficits and debts than Carter, bush l even higher. Clinton went from record deficits to a surplus, bush ll from a surplus to over a trillion a year deficits, they are down to a little over $5b this year.

Those are facts, call me names all you want, but the facts won't change.

[SCOUT]

Sooner8th is funny.

[Sooner8th]

Sooner8th is funny.

and truthful. Show me one thing that is not a fact.

[hawaii 5-0]

Meanwhile.....

* Dow tops 17,000 for first time; S&P 500 near 2,000

* Nasdaq closes at highest since 2000

* U.S. June jobs report well above forecasts

Just observing.......

If only the two sides had worked together.........


5-0

[SCOUT]

OK.

Your highlighted point from the last article.
An aging population seems to have something to do with this shift,

Opinion <> Fact

You are funny

[Sooner8th]

OK.

Your highlighted point from the last article.
An aging population seems to have something to do with this shift,

Opinion <> Fact

You are funny

Out of everything I said this is all you came up with as a rebuttal? PATHETIC

[SoonerorLater]

Then get the ****ing republicans out of his way. Did the other recoveries have debt ceiling limits fights? Did the other recoveries have government shut downs? Did the other recoveries have spending cuts? NO!

Of course this is not acceptable to me, but i understand he has a party against him doing everything they can to ensure the economy fails. This economy is a HELL of a lot better off than if republican trickle down, supply side "economics" were being followed. EVERYTHING the republicans said about jobs is completely wrong, Obamacare will kill job creation, they have grown. Raising taxes on the "job creators" will kill job creation, they have grown even faster since their taxes were raised.

All your party has is trickle down, supply side "economics" and it does not work. That is why I keep comparing back to bush, same policies you and your party want in institute now. It has not worked since your party adopted it. The hated by the right Jimmy Carter had more jobs created per year than reagan. Clinton had more jobs per year than reagan or bush l. Obama has more jobs per year than bush ll. reagan had higher deficits and debts than Carter, bush l even higher. Clinton went from record deficits to a surplus, bush ll from a surplus to over a trillion a year deficits, they are down to a little over $5b this year.

Those are facts, call me names all you want, but the facts won't change.

So you are saying it is a Republican controlled House (excluding the Democratic controlled Senate) that is preventing Obama from achieving economic greatness?

[REDREX]

Clinton did much better when the Reps controlled Congress----Somehow that is never brought up

[SCOUT]

Out of everything I said this is all you came up with as a rebuttal? PATHETIC

You literally asked for one example. This is one example. Deal with the facts.

Your attempt to attack is still funny though. Thanks for sticking with it.


and truthful. Show me one thing that is not a fact.

[olevetonahill]

and truthful. Show me one thing that is not a fact.


OK.

Your highlighted point from the last article.
An aging population seems to have something to do with this shift,

Opinion <> Fact

You are funny


Out of everything I said this is all you came up with as a rebuttal? PATHETIC

You said ONE THING, He did dumas.

[Sooner8th]

You literally asked for one example. This is one example. Deal with the facts.

Your attempt to attack is still funny though. Thanks for sticking with it.

I was talking about this statement you dumbass. You have to go back how far to dig that up?


Then get the ****ing republicans out of his way. Did the other recoveries have debt ceiling limits fights? Did the other recoveries have government shut downs? Did the other recoveries have spending cuts? NO!

Of course this is not acceptable to me, but i understand he has a party against him doing everything they can to ensure the economy fails. This economy is a HELL of a lot better off than if republican trickle down, supply side "economics" were being followed. EVERYTHING the republicans said about jobs is completely wrong, Obamacare will kill job creation, they have grown. Raising taxes on the "job creators" will kill job creation, they have grown even faster since their taxes were raised.

All your party has is trickle down, supply side "economics" and it does not work. That is why I keep comparing back to bush, same policies you and your party want in institute now. It has not worked since your party adopted it. The hated by the right Jimmy Carter had more jobs created per year than reagan. Clinton had more jobs per year than reagan or bush l. Obama has more jobs per year than bush ll. reagan had higher deficits and debts than Carter, bush l even higher. Clinton went from record deficits to a surplus, bush ll from a surplus to over a trillion a year deficits, they are down to a little over $5b this year.

Those are facts, call me names all you want, but the facts won't change.

Do you see the part where i said Those are facts?

[SCOUT]

I was talking about this statement you dumbass. You have to go back how far to dig that up?



Do you see the part where i said Those are facts?

Heh. Keep moving the goalpost. OK, I will bite. Gosh, I don't even know where to begin. Your specious logic makes you think that you are stating facts, when in fact (notice the difference) you are stating generalizations.

OK, how about: "All your party has is trickle down, supply side "economics"...

If this were true you would not be able to rail on Bush for his governmental spending and bail outs. You know the opposite of supply side "economics."

[Sooner8th]

labor force participation rate peaked in 2000 and has fallen ever since - WHOOPS oh darn How is an aging population obamas fault? HUH?

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/07/participation%20rate%20June.jpg

growth continues to be concentrated in lower-paying service jobs at restaurants, retail stores and temp agencies
is typical of recovery jobs - reentering into the work force.

AGAIN OBAMA 288k one month - The May payroll number was revised up from plus 217,000 jobs to plus 224,000. April’s employment number was also revised from 282,000 jobs added to 304,000. Total employment gains those months were therefore 29,000 higher than BLS — a division of the Department of Labor — previously reported. Job growth averaged 272,000 for the last three months.

A hell of a lot better than the policies you want to implement that are the same as bush's that LOST 825,000 private sectors jobs in 8 years.

Show me where i said these were facts.

[SCOUT]

You crack me up

[Sooner8th]

Heh. Keep moving the goalpost. OK, I will bite. Gosh, I don't even know where to begin. Your specious logic makes you think that you are stating facts, when in fact (notice the difference) you are stating generalizations.

OK, how about: "All your party has is trickle down, supply side "economics"...

If this were true you would not be able to rail on Bush for his governmental spending and bail outs. You know the opposite of supply side "economics."

No one is moving the goal posts. It says right in the post these are facts. Do I have to spell it out for you? Can you not follow.

All you have is trickle down, supply side "economics". EVERY proposal you have is cutting taxes to the wealth. I posted off romenys website and it was cutting taxes to job makers cutting taxes to job creators.

Just keep voting republican, your inability to admit the obvious fits you well in you party.

Tell me again how bush isn't a conservative.

What a bunch of ignorant losers.

[SCOUT]

No one is moving the goal posts. It says right in the post these are facts. Do I have to spell it out for you? Can you not follow.

All you have is trickle down, supply side "economics". EVERY proposal you have is cutting taxes to the wealth. I posted off romenys website and it was cutting taxes to job makers cutting taxes to job creators.

Just keep voting republican, your inability to admit the obvious fits you well in you party.

Tell me again how bush isn't a conservative.

What a bunch of ignorant losers.

I am sorry, did my answer not allow you to post a link to some article? You asked for something that wasn't a fact. I showed you a direct contradiction. The rest of your post is the ranting of a madman.

That is why you are so funny.

[Sooner8th]

Heh. Keep moving the goalpost. OK, I will bite. Gosh, I don't even know where to begin. Your specious logic makes you think that you are stating facts, when in fact (notice the difference) you are stating generalizations.

OK, how about: "All your party has is trickle down, supply side "economics"...

If this were true you would not be able to rail on Bush for his governmental spending and bail outs. You know the opposite of supply side "economics."

Let me try this from a different angle - you agree all of the numbers and figures are facts then. And you still vote republican?

And you call me stupid.

[SCOUT]

Let me try this from a different angle - you agree all of the numbers and figures are facts then. And you still vote republican?

And you call me stupid.
I have never called you stupid, I said you were funny. I have merely pointed non-facts that you requested. The rest of your argument with me is in your head.

[Sooner8th]

I am sorry, did my answer not allow you to post a link to some article? You asked for something that wasn't a fact. I showed you a direct contradiction. The rest of your post is the ranting of a madman.

That is why you are so funny.

You simply cannot follow - I was referring to the previous post, where i said those are the facts, not a post where I never claimed were facts. why would i reference a post where i didn't claim where facts? Try to keep up.

[SCOUT]

You are funny

[olevetonahill]

and truthful. Show me one thing that is not a fact.


OK.

Your highlighted point from the last article.
An aging population seems to have something to do with this shift,

Opinion <> Fact

You are funny


You are funny

Scout, When ya argue with Dildo breath yer just http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif

[SCOUT]

Scout, When ya argue with Dildo breath yer just http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif

True, but I am honestly fascinated. How can someone attribute so much non-existent nuance to a message board post and then claim incredibly broad political generalizations as fact? It is truly amazing.

I apologize for feeding the troll.

[olevetonahill]

True, but I am honestly fascinated. How can someone attribute so much non-existent nuance to a message board post and then claim incredibly broad political generalizations as fact? It is truly amazing.

I apologize for feeding the troll.

Heh. we have fun feedin him , Got to keep his little Monkey brain skittering around dont ya Know :cocksure:

[diverdog]

This recovery after a recession is the worst in 70 years. I don't know what alternate universe you live in but if this recovery is acceptable to you, then that answers how and why you could be pleased with BHO's job performance.

Champs:

i do not think anyone could do much better. The ammo we use to fight economic downturns is almost used up. That is why they turned to QE.

about the only area he could have done something spectacular is to open exporting of LNG and not passed Obamacare.

[champions77]

Champs:

i do not think anyone could do much better. The ammo we use to fight economic downturns is almost used up. That is why they turned to QE.

about the only area he could have done something spectacular is to open exporting of LNG and not passed Obamacare.

DD surely you don't feel this is about the best we can do? Instead of listing all of the areas that he has done poorly, maybe it might be easier to list all of the areas in the economy (crony capitalism green energy projects excluded) where his policies have made a positive impact on job creators and the economy? Obama's Economic Advisory Board was formed in 2009 and I think that he quit going after only a few times. I think this Administration has set all sorts of records as to new regulations.

Elect a President that obviously is not a big fan of capitalism and this is what you get. Should it really surprise any of us?

[yermom]

it's obvious he loves banks and insurance companies. shouldn't you guys like him?