Bush administration on Jobs
-
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_sperling&sid=ag.ujNZ.MUjo[^] Even if one puts aside the meager growth in June and July and looks only at the period the Bush administration seems most proud of -- the 12 months following the passage of their tax cut in late May 2003 -- it turns out that job growth was weaker than in any comparable period in a recovery since the 1930s. The 110,000 new jobs created, on average, each month in those 12 months weren't even enough to absorb new workers entering the labor market, and that figure was weaker than even the worst year of job growth during the Clinton presidency. Indeed, however you cut the job numbers since the passage of Bush's 2003 tax package, our economy hasn't seen such weak employment growth in a recovery in 50 years. More facts. X| Not hard to find if you "want to". Stop the rhetoric and get real. <edit> Here is one small business owners assessment of Bush Tax cuts. http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=85676[^] </edit>
-- signature under construction --
-pete
-
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_sperling&sid=ag.ujNZ.MUjo[^] Even if one puts aside the meager growth in June and July and looks only at the period the Bush administration seems most proud of -- the 12 months following the passage of their tax cut in late May 2003 -- it turns out that job growth was weaker than in any comparable period in a recovery since the 1930s. The 110,000 new jobs created, on average, each month in those 12 months weren't even enough to absorb new workers entering the labor market, and that figure was weaker than even the worst year of job growth during the Clinton presidency. Indeed, however you cut the job numbers since the passage of Bush's 2003 tax package, our economy hasn't seen such weak employment growth in a recovery in 50 years. More facts. X| Not hard to find if you "want to". Stop the rhetoric and get real. <edit> Here is one small business owners assessment of Bush Tax cuts. http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=85676[^] </edit>
-- signature under construction --
-pete
from the Wall St. Journal:
Employers believe they can slow the rate of increase of their soaring health-care costs to just under 10% in 2005, but only after shifting even more of the expense to employees, a new nationwide survey said. That forecast comes from preliminary results of an annual survey of nearly 3,000 employers by Mercer Human Resource Consulting. The 916 employers that have so far responded to the survey said they believe the total cost of health-care benefits per employee will rise an average 9.6% next year. The survey, one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind, is expected to be completed in December. In the survey's final results last year, employers said they expected health-care costs to increase 13% going into 2004.
well duh, i bet employers could cut down on the cost of many things, if they shifted the expense to the employee. funny how that works. Software | Cleek
-
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_sperling&sid=ag.ujNZ.MUjo[^] Even if one puts aside the meager growth in June and July and looks only at the period the Bush administration seems most proud of -- the 12 months following the passage of their tax cut in late May 2003 -- it turns out that job growth was weaker than in any comparable period in a recovery since the 1930s. The 110,000 new jobs created, on average, each month in those 12 months weren't even enough to absorb new workers entering the labor market, and that figure was weaker than even the worst year of job growth during the Clinton presidency. Indeed, however you cut the job numbers since the passage of Bush's 2003 tax package, our economy hasn't seen such weak employment growth in a recovery in 50 years. More facts. X| Not hard to find if you "want to". Stop the rhetoric and get real. <edit> Here is one small business owners assessment of Bush Tax cuts. http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=85676[^] </edit>
-- signature under construction --
-pete
palbano wrote: Here is one small business owners assessment of Bush Tax cuts. The only thing I did with my $600 tax refund/rebate was to apply it to paying my taxes! Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog Hunt The Wumpus RealDevs.Net
-
from the Wall St. Journal:
Employers believe they can slow the rate of increase of their soaring health-care costs to just under 10% in 2005, but only after shifting even more of the expense to employees, a new nationwide survey said. That forecast comes from preliminary results of an annual survey of nearly 3,000 employers by Mercer Human Resource Consulting. The 916 employers that have so far responded to the survey said they believe the total cost of health-care benefits per employee will rise an average 9.6% next year. The survey, one of the most comprehensive studies of its kind, is expected to be completed in December. In the survey's final results last year, employers said they expected health-care costs to increase 13% going into 2004.
well duh, i bet employers could cut down on the cost of many things, if they shifted the expense to the employee. funny how that works. Software | Cleek
Well just what is your brilliant solution to the problem. For the employers to keep eating the increase while at the same time hiring more employees and trying to keep costs down and profits at a level that they can compete ? Get real dude. I am one of those people who have to deal with this problem on a daily basis. Considering myself as self employeed ( I own a small softwar company ) insurance for my wife and I - with a 5000.00 deductible - is over 12000.00 a year. 1000.00 a month. 250.00 a week. 50.00 for each working day. 6.25 an hour. And I have been notified that in October when our policy is to be renewed that it will increase by an average of 6%. We are both in good health and have NEVER had to use our insurance - knock on wood. However we are in that age group - 50-60 - where it is almost impossible to get anything good insurance wise. Something needs to be done - but what. (1) Universal health care ? I hate to think of what the cost would be in both taxes and degradation of the quality of health care. The annual tax load would probably be more than the defense budget probably causing a tax increase at some point down the road of 30-40%. Remember that the US has an aging population . All the baby boomers (me and my wife ) are starting to get old and retire. As they leave the workforce the burden - like that of Social Security - will be borne by fewer and fewer workers. You do the math. (2) Government subsidized insurance. There is a lot to hope for in this but there are simply to many politicans who don't have the backbone to support it. You pay a portion of your insurance based on you annual income and the Gov. picks up the rest of the tab. This is not as simple as it seems but it does have some merit. The doenside is that it would create another Gov agency to facilitate and that is always bad. (3) Ignore the problem - blame it on the heartless employeers who won't pay for insurance for their workers - and damn the cost - and hope the problem will go away. Seems to be the popular scheme at this time. In reality soemthing has to be done about the runaway cost of health care and the unfair pricing policies enforced my most health care providers. If you are not familiar with it let me summerize it : We have a procedure that costs the hospital 1000.00 to perform. A medicare patient will pay cost+1% or 1010.00 for this procedure. A patient covered by a large insuranc ecompany will pay cost+a negotiated percentage usually about 30-40% so we will say 1400.00 for the same procedure. A self insured
-
Well just what is your brilliant solution to the problem. For the employers to keep eating the increase while at the same time hiring more employees and trying to keep costs down and profits at a level that they can compete ? Get real dude. I am one of those people who have to deal with this problem on a daily basis. Considering myself as self employeed ( I own a small softwar company ) insurance for my wife and I - with a 5000.00 deductible - is over 12000.00 a year. 1000.00 a month. 250.00 a week. 50.00 for each working day. 6.25 an hour. And I have been notified that in October when our policy is to be renewed that it will increase by an average of 6%. We are both in good health and have NEVER had to use our insurance - knock on wood. However we are in that age group - 50-60 - where it is almost impossible to get anything good insurance wise. Something needs to be done - but what. (1) Universal health care ? I hate to think of what the cost would be in both taxes and degradation of the quality of health care. The annual tax load would probably be more than the defense budget probably causing a tax increase at some point down the road of 30-40%. Remember that the US has an aging population . All the baby boomers (me and my wife ) are starting to get old and retire. As they leave the workforce the burden - like that of Social Security - will be borne by fewer and fewer workers. You do the math. (2) Government subsidized insurance. There is a lot to hope for in this but there are simply to many politicans who don't have the backbone to support it. You pay a portion of your insurance based on you annual income and the Gov. picks up the rest of the tab. This is not as simple as it seems but it does have some merit. The doenside is that it would create another Gov agency to facilitate and that is always bad. (3) Ignore the problem - blame it on the heartless employeers who won't pay for insurance for their workers - and damn the cost - and hope the problem will go away. Seems to be the popular scheme at this time. In reality soemthing has to be done about the runaway cost of health care and the unfair pricing policies enforced my most health care providers. If you are not familiar with it let me summerize it : We have a procedure that costs the hospital 1000.00 to perform. A medicare patient will pay cost+1% or 1010.00 for this procedure. A patient covered by a large insuranc ecompany will pay cost+a negotiated percentage usually about 30-40% so we will say 1400.00 for the same procedure. A self insured
Richard Stringer wrote: Universal health care ? I hate to think of what the cost would be in both taxes and degradation of the quality of health care. Bullshit. US: No universal health care Spendings for health care per capita:$4,887 Life expectancy: 77.43 years Infant mortality: 6.63 deaths/1,000 live births HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 0.6% Canada: Universal health care Spendings for health care per capita:$2,792 Life expectancy: 79.96 years Infant mortality:4.82 deaths/1,000 live births HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 0.3% France: Universal health care Spendings for health care per capita:$2,561 Life expectancy:79.44 years Infant mortality:4.31 deaths/1,000 live births HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 0.3% Sources: Health Expenditure Trends in OECD Countries, 1990-2001[^], CIA World factbook[^].
Собой остаться дольше...
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Universal health care ? I hate to think of what the cost would be in both taxes and degradation of the quality of health care. Bullshit. US: No universal health care Spendings for health care per capita:$4,887 Life expectancy: 77.43 years Infant mortality: 6.63 deaths/1,000 live births HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 0.6% Canada: Universal health care Spendings for health care per capita:$2,792 Life expectancy: 79.96 years Infant mortality:4.82 deaths/1,000 live births HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 0.3% France: Universal health care Spendings for health care per capita:$2,561 Life expectancy:79.44 years Infant mortality:4.31 deaths/1,000 live births HIV/AIDS - adult prevalence rate: 0.3% Sources: Health Expenditure Trends in OECD Countries, 1990-2001[^], CIA World factbook[^].
Собой остаться дольше...
Then why are the Canadians flocking to the US for health care ? And also what is the effective Tax rate in France and Canada or any country having a version of universal health care and what is the percentage spent on health care vs percentage of income and what is the quality of the care. Oh well I am reminded of what Mark Twain had to say on the subject: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics". Of course there is a solution of a sort - we could tell NATO to kiss our ass - remove all troops from Europe and Asia to reduce our defense spending and probably save enough money to have some type of universal health care. But then Germany would probably go bankrupt and Korea and Japan would have a fit and we dirty Americans would be accused of breaking our promises. Life would be sweet - no ? Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_sperling&sid=ag.ujNZ.MUjo[^] Even if one puts aside the meager growth in June and July and looks only at the period the Bush administration seems most proud of -- the 12 months following the passage of their tax cut in late May 2003 -- it turns out that job growth was weaker than in any comparable period in a recovery since the 1930s. The 110,000 new jobs created, on average, each month in those 12 months weren't even enough to absorb new workers entering the labor market, and that figure was weaker than even the worst year of job growth during the Clinton presidency. Indeed, however you cut the job numbers since the passage of Bush's 2003 tax package, our economy hasn't seen such weak employment growth in a recovery in 50 years. More facts. X| Not hard to find if you "want to". Stop the rhetoric and get real. <edit> Here is one small business owners assessment of Bush Tax cuts. http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=85676[^] </edit>
-- signature under construction --
-pete
-
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000039&refer=columnist_sperling&sid=ag.ujNZ.MUjo[^] Even if one puts aside the meager growth in June and July and looks only at the period the Bush administration seems most proud of -- the 12 months following the passage of their tax cut in late May 2003 -- it turns out that job growth was weaker than in any comparable period in a recovery since the 1930s. The 110,000 new jobs created, on average, each month in those 12 months weren't even enough to absorb new workers entering the labor market, and that figure was weaker than even the worst year of job growth during the Clinton presidency. Indeed, however you cut the job numbers since the passage of Bush's 2003 tax package, our economy hasn't seen such weak employment growth in a recovery in 50 years. More facts. X| Not hard to find if you "want to". Stop the rhetoric and get real. <edit> Here is one small business owners assessment of Bush Tax cuts. http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=85676[^] </edit>
-- signature under construction --
-pete
-
Care to explain how things would have been better without the tax-cut? :confused: "You have to remember one thing about the will of the people: it wasn't that long ago that we were swept away by the Macarena." Jon Stewart
-
Then why are the Canadians flocking to the US for health care ? And also what is the effective Tax rate in France and Canada or any country having a version of universal health care and what is the percentage spent on health care vs percentage of income and what is the quality of the care. Oh well I am reminded of what Mark Twain had to say on the subject: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics". Of course there is a solution of a sort - we could tell NATO to kiss our ass - remove all troops from Europe and Asia to reduce our defense spending and probably save enough money to have some type of universal health care. But then Germany would probably go bankrupt and Korea and Japan would have a fit and we dirty Americans would be accused of breaking our promises. Life would be sweet - no ? Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Richard Stringer wrote: we dirty Americans would be accused of breaking our promises Been there... done that. Are you claiming that the US has never been guilty of that? Doesn't seem like a good way to make a point. But, that's just my opinion... I could be wrong.
-- signature under construction --
-pete
-
Wouldn't that only require simple Math? I see your :confused: and raise you :confused::confused: :-D
-- signature under construction --
-pete
palbano wrote: Wouldn't that only require simple Math? Let's see. Tax cut. Individuals have more disposable cash. They buy something(s) they normally wouldn't have bought if the government had their money. Some of those things come from small bussiness. Small business prospers, expands and hires more people. This Pete, is a good thing. The theory is that as people buy things and business expands and more people get hired there are less needing government support and more paying taxes and despite the initial outlay of cash for the tax cut itself the net mid/long term effect is paying down the deficit and ultimately getting back into the black.* No tax cut. Individuals have no more disposable cash. They buy less and put off purchasing luxuries. Businesses contract or go under. People are layed off or off-shored. The government can't use the extra money from the non-existant tax-cut to pay down the deficit because they have more people on the dole. So... yes, the math is pretty simple. How did you see it? * All this is premised on the idea that the president and congress don't squander any extra cash on stupid shit like wars in the middle east or billion dollar missle defense stuff. :sigh: "You have to remember one thing about the will of the people: it wasn't that long ago that we were swept away by the Macarena." Jon Stewart
-
Then why are the Canadians flocking to the US for health care ? And also what is the effective Tax rate in France and Canada or any country having a version of universal health care and what is the percentage spent on health care vs percentage of income and what is the quality of the care. Oh well I am reminded of what Mark Twain had to say on the subject: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics". Of course there is a solution of a sort - we could tell NATO to kiss our ass - remove all troops from Europe and Asia to reduce our defense spending and probably save enough money to have some type of universal health care. But then Germany would probably go bankrupt and Korea and Japan would have a fit and we dirty Americans would be accused of breaking our promises. Life would be sweet - no ? Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
Richard Stringer wrote: And also what is the effective Tax rate in France and Canada or any country having a version of universal health care and what is the percentage spent on health care vs percentage of income and what is the quality of the care. It was all in the figures actually. Well, maybe not the quality, but that could be read between the lines. You'll find that the tax rate in countries with universal health care is astronomous high, but as the figures that Karl shows, it is not solely because of the health care. Countries that has chosen to implement universal health care, are very probably also caring for other details of the wellfare of its citizens. Richard Stringer wrote: remove all troops from Europe and Asia to reduce our defense spending and probably save enough money to have some type of universal health care. But then Germany would probably go bankrupt and Korea and Japan would have a fit and we dirty Americans would be accused of breaking our promises. Life would be sweet - no Do you really believe that the German economy is based on small money from the US Army :) ? I'm not really on safe ground here, because this is second hand information, I believe it was Peterchen that provided a link some time ago: The US troops aren't really spending any money in the local community, because the bases gets foodstuff and entertainment directly from the US. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus