Omaha Job growth

[skinzfan23]

Job Growth is 4th Best in Nation
From the World Herald:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110915/M ... -for-omaha

[Erik]

1.2% job growth in 3 months is very good.  Let's just hope that the current economy climate does inhibit our ability to continue pulling in new businesses.

[S33]

1.2% job growth in 3 months is very good.  Let's just hope that the current economy climate does inhibit our ability to continue pulling in new businesses.

Should work out well as long as Omaha gets it's cut of the half a trillion this administration wants to spend to artificially and magically create "permanent" jobs.

[icejammer]

Should work out well as long as Omaha gets it's cut of the half a trillion this administration wants to spend to artificially and magically create "permanent" jobs.

What's artificial about it?  By just about every account, from the CBO to nearly every last reputable economist, the first "stimulus" created/saved between roughly 1.5 to 3 million jobs.  Who said they were permanent?  For that matter, what job is "permanent"?

[S33]

Should work out well as long as Omaha gets it's cut of the half a trillion this administration wants to spend to artificially and magically create "permanent" jobs.

What's artificial about it?  By just about every account, from the CBO to nearly every last reputable economist, the first "stimulus" created/saved between roughly 1.5 to 3 million jobs.  Who said they were permanent?  For that matter, what job is "permanent"?

Obama said "permanent", many times. And it is well documented.

Secondly - Jobs are created by demand from an open-free market. They aren't created because some government persuades its ponzi-like treasury to sell trillions of under-valued notes to foreign governements in an attempt to debt-spend into pet projects - thus, creating "artificial jobs".

Let's put it this way. Let's assume you spent 100% of what you make, nothing less, nothing more. Would you pay the neighbor boy with a credit card to mow your lawn, knowing that it isn't financially sustainable, simply because you knew he "needed" the job? |expletive| no, you wouldn't.

[icejammer]

Obama said "permanent", many times. And it is well documented.

Ya know, I've googled over a dozen news stories from early 2009 and have yet to find one where Obama is quoted as saying "permanent".  I did, however, find many post-stimulus articles on certain websites that lean a certain way bemoaning the lack of "permanent" jobs.

Secondly - Jobs are created by demand from an open-free market. They aren't created because some government persuades its ponzi-like treasury to sell trillions of under-valued notes to foreign governements in an attempt to debt-spend into pet projects - thus, creating "artificial jobs".

So....what your argument boils down to (as only an example) is that government-paid defense contractors are artificial jobs?  Because there is no "open-free market" for stealth fighter jets, right?

You know darn well this is |expletive|.

Not BS at all, and you'd know that if you had any modicum of education in economics.


Now, let's quit hijacking every thread with politics and discuss the topics at hand.

[S33]

By just about every account, from the CBO to nearly every last reputable economist, the first "stimulus" created/saved between roughly 1.5 to 3 million jobs.

There was a huge difference between saving our country's entire financial system from collapse from now, to simple babe out the dollar to spur economic growth just before the start of election season.

[HuskerDave]

Should work out well as long as Omaha gets it's cut of the half a trillion this administration wants to spend to artificially and magically create "permanent" jobs.

What's artificial about it?  By just about every account, from the CBO to nearly every last reputable economist, the first "stimulus" created/saved between roughly 1.5 to 3 million jobs.  Who said they were permanent?  For that matter, what job is "permanent"?

Wow, you've been drinking the kool-aid.  

Every 'reputable' economist stated before this falsely-named stimulus that the economy would have retained more jobs without it ever being passed.  And now, with unemployment skyrocketing, you trot out the administration's imaginary jobs 'created or saved' numbers.  It's a complete fabrication, Jammer.  The CBO does not support the 1.5 to 3 million jobs.  This week they came out and said it's more like 1500 jobs.  Yes, 1500, for a trillion-dollar 'investment' stolen from the pockets of our children.

Keynsian economics simply don't work, and never have.

[S33]

Ya know, I've googled over a dozen news stories from early 2009 and have yet to find one where Obama is quoted as saying "permanent".  I did, however, find many post-stimulus articles on certain websites that lean a certain way bemoaning the lack of "permanent" jobs.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-s ... nally-here

So....what your argument boils down to (as only an example) is that government-paid defense contractors are artificial jobs?  Because there is no "open-free market" for stealth fighter jets, right?

Historically, almost all of our weapons systems have hit an open-market at some point or another. Also, comparing defense spending with dolling out free cash to [sometimes] American corporations is pretty lame.

Not BS at all, and you'd know that if you had any modicum of education in economics.

I know that I have to spend as much or less than I make to have a sustainable personal economic model. I guess you received your "modicum" from Visa or Mastercard?

Now, let's quit hijacking every thread with politics and discuss the topics at hand.

Sure. I will quit hijacking threads and you keep deleting relevant posts in your weak section of the forum.

[icejammer]

Should work out well as long as Omaha gets it's cut of the half a trillion this administration wants to spend to artificially and magically create "permanent" jobs.

What's artificial about it?  By just about every account, from the CBO to nearly every last reputable economist, the first "stimulus" created/saved between roughly 1.5 to 3 million jobs.  Who said they were permanent?  For that matter, what job is "permanent"?

Wow, you've been drinking the kool-aid.  

Every 'reputable' economist stated before this falsely-named stimulus that the economy would have retained more jobs without it ever being passed.  And now, with unemployment skyrocketing, you trot out the administration's imaginary jobs 'created or saved' numbers.  It's a complete fabrication, Jammer.  The CBO does not support the 1.5 to 3 million jobs.  This week they came out and said it's more like 1500 jobs.  Yes, 1500, for a trillion-dollar 'investment' stolen from the pockets of our children.

Keynsian economics simply don't work, and never have.

I don't drink the Kool-Aid, I actually rely on real data, rather than have it spoon-fed to me by any of the mass media outlets you may fawn over or disparage.

In case you missed it, here is the most recent report released by the CBO on the employment gains due to the "stimulus."  I'll draw your attention to Table 1.  If you can show me where the CBO report shows 1500 jobs, I'd appreciate it.

The vast majority of economists do indeed agree that the stimulus prevented the economy from sinking further than it did, very few economists support your view as stated above regarding jobs sans the stimulus.  Keynesian economics, while not perfect, do indeed have a positive impact on our economy when it's slumping.

[icejammer]

Ya know, I've googled over a dozen news stories from early 2009 and have yet to find one where Obama is quoted as saying "permanent".  I did, however, find many post-stimulus articles on certain websites that lean a certain way bemoaning the lack of "permanent" jobs.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-s ... nally-here

Jon Stewart, yeah, now there's a news source you can rely on.

So....what your argument boils down to (as only an example) is that government-paid defense contractors are artificial jobs?  Because there is no "open-free market" for stealth fighter jets, right?

Historically, almost all of our weapons systems have hit an open-market at some point or another. Also, comparing defense spending with dolling out free cash to [sometimes] American corporations is pretty lame.

Nice deflection, but where's the open market for advanced weaponry?  Also, what free cash are corporations getting that defense contractors aren't?

Not BS at all, and you'd know that if you had any modicum of education in economics.

I know that I have to spend as much or less than I make to have a sustainable personal economic model. I guess you received your "modicum" from Visa or Mastercard?

Refresh my memory, how many people pay cash for their home?

Now, let's quit hijacking every thread with politics and discuss the topics at hand.

Sure. I will quit hijacking threads and you keep deleting relevant posts in your weak section of the forum.

The only thing weak is your attempt to answer any of these questions.  But that's just my opinion.  (and I've not deleted any relevant posts anywhere, regardless of what you may think.  But again, that's probably just my opinion)

And what the heck does this have to do with jobs in Omaha?

[S33]

Jon Stewart, yeah, now there's a news source you can rely on.

Watch the frickin' video!

Nice deflection, but where's the open market for advanced weaponry?  Also, what free cash are corporations getting that defense contractors aren't?

Defense contractors answer federal requests for purchase/development/research - and they are expected to make huge capital expense to yield a workable result. The government is buying from them - not handing them ridiculous sums of cash hoping they will use the cash to generate jobs and revenue in the free-market.

Refresh my memory, how many people pay cash for their home?

Refresh my memory, how many financially responsible people budget to make their mortgage payments from recurring income, rather than a line of credit? Are you really this dense?

The only thing weak is your attempt to answer any of these questions.  

Sorry. I find it mildly bizarre and awkward having to point out the obvious to such a supposedly studied individual. Perhaps we are going by Thomas Jefferson High standards?