Vegas Employer: Obama Won–So I Fired 22 Employees

[CrotchetyGeezer]

That's the way it works. Employees create profit, if they dont, you can them. To arbitrarily can them because you don't like who the President is the act of a Douchebag

When that presidents policies increase the cost of retaining that employee to the point it is no longer fiscally feasible to keep paying him even if he is doing the work the employee loses his job. It's all in the math.

Except that the Obama policies actually reduced the cost of employees, and he made clear he would continue the policies that added over 5 million private sector jobs in his first 4 years. Did you know that there was a net private sector job loss under 8 years of Bush? did you know that Obama created more private sector jobs than Reagan in his first term?

Did you know you're a liar?

Date extracted on: November 11, 2012 (6:15:07 AM)

Employment, Hours and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Id: CEU0500000001
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private
NAICS Code: -
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

That's the way it works. Employees create profit, if they dont, you can them. To arbitrarily can them because you don't like who the President is the act of a Douchebag

When that presidents policies increase the cost of retaining that employee to the point it is no longer fiscally feasible to keep paying him even if he is doing the work the employee loses his job. It's all in the math.

Except that the Obama policies actually reduced the cost of employees, and he made clear he would continue the policies that added over 5 million private sector jobs in his first 4 years.

Actually, it's more like about 3.2 million, presuming the preliminary estimates are correct for September and October of 2012. But, of course, the year isn't over and Obama hasn't actually served four years yet. Who knows how many jobs might be lost between now and January when he's inaugurated for his second term. Then, he will have served four years.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

That's the way it works. Employees create profit, if they dont, you can them. To arbitrarily can them because you don't like who the President is the act of a Douchebag

When that presidents policies increase the cost of retaining that employee to the point it is no longer fiscally feasible to keep paying him even if he is doing the work the employee loses his job. It's all in the math.

Except that the Obama policies actually reduced the cost of employees, and he made clear he would continue the policies that added over 5 million private sector jobs in his first 4 years. Did you know that there was a net private sector job loss under 8 years of Bush? did you know that Obama created more private sector jobs than Reagan in his first term?

Did you know that, yet again, you're a liar?

In January of 1981, the number of employed in the private sector was 73,481,000. In December of 1984, the number of employed in the private sector was 78,371,000. That's an increase of 4,890,000 private sector jobs.

In January of 2009, the number of employed in the private sector was 109,084,000. And, as of October 2012, the number of employed in the private sector was, according to preliminary estimates, 112,399,000. That's an increase of 3,315,000 private sector jobs. Now, true, the year isn't over yet and it's possible you could be right by the time the end of December gets here but, at this point, you can't make such a claim that Obama created more private sector jobs than Reagan did in his "first term".

However, we can compare how many private sector jobs were created for a three year and ten month period, from January 1981 to October 1984 for Reagan to a three year and ten month period, from January 2009 to October 2012 for Obama and, see how things turn out for you.

Lets see, again, in January 1981, the number of employed in the private sector was 73,481,000. In October 1984, the number of employed in the private sector was 79,904,000. That's an increase of 6,423,000 private sector jobs. Whereas, again, as demonstrated above, presuming the preliminary estimates for September and October 2012 are correct, Obama added 3,315,000 private sector jobs.

So...oops...try again.

If you want to see the figures for yourself?

Access the page I've provided a link for below from the BLS and click a check mark for Total private either under Not Seasonally Adjusted and/or Seasonally Adjusted. I just used the Not Seasonally Adjusted numbers but, I suspect the Seasonally Adjusted numbers look quite similar insofar as the numbers of jobs created.

Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands]

 

[Too Tall]

Unemployment under Obama's first term mirrors unemployment under Reagan's first term.

Reagan started with a 7.5% unemployment rate, it rose to 10.8%, and was over 8% for two plus years.

Then by the time Reagan was seeking reelection, it was at 7.4%

.

Reagan also did not have to contend with massive government sector layoffs while he was trying to fix the employment picture

that's because reagan raised taxes 7 times...

oh right.. that was before grover norquist.

And now, the rest of the story:

The unemployment rate rose from 7% in 1980 to 10.8% in 1982, then declined to 5.4% in 1988.

The American economy went from a GDP growth of -0.3% in 1980 to 4.1% in 1988.

A net job increase of about 21 million also occurred through mid-1990.

The inflation rate, 13.5% in 1980, fell to 4.1% in 1988.

During the Reagan administration, federal receipts grew from $618 billion to $991 billion (an increase of 60%); while outlays grew from $ 746 billion to $1144 billion (an increase of 53%).

According to a 1996 report of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, during Reagan's two terms, and through 1993, the top 10% of taxpayers paid an increased share of income taxes (not including payroll taxes) to the Federal government, while the lowest 50% of taxpayers paid a reduced share of income tax revenue.

President Ronald Reagan's 1981 cut in the top regular tax rate on unearned income reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20%—its lowest level since the Hoover administration. This tax benefits the wealthy, however, in 1986 President Reagan set tax rates on capital gains at the same level as the rates on ordinary income like salaries and wages, with both topping out at 28 percent.

At last, a tax is raised.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That's the way it works. Employees create profit, if they dont, you can them. To arbitrarily can them because you don't like who the President is the act of a Douchebag

When that presidents policies increase the cost of retaining that employee to the point it is no longer fiscally feasible to keep paying him even if he is doing the work the employee loses his job. It's all in the math.

Except that the Obama policies actually reduced the cost of employees, and he made clear he would continue the policies that added over 5 million private sector jobs in his first 4 years. Did you know that there was a net private sector job loss under 8 years of Bush? did you know that Obama created more private sector jobs than Reagan in his first term?

Of course you don't, or refuse to acknowledge documented facts. It's much easier to live the myth in a polarized world if you ignore reality.

No it did not stop lying Some jobs were added but how much where people paid an hour too work?

 

[rightwinger]

When that presidents policies increase the cost of retaining that employee to the point it is no longer fiscally feasible to keep paying him even if he is doing the work the employee loses his job. It's all in the math.

Except that the Obama policies actually reduced the cost of employees, and he made clear he would continue the policies that added over 5 million private sector jobs in his first 4 years.

Actually, it's more like about 3.2 million, presuming the preliminary estimates are correct for September and October of 2012. But, of course, the year isn't over and Obama hasn't actually served four years yet. Who knows how many jobs might be lost between now and January when he's inaugurated for his second term. Then, he will have served four years.

Well, you can always root for more unemployment....but I think you will be disappointed

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Except that the Obama policies actually reduced the cost of employees, and he made clear he would continue the policies that added over 5 million private sector jobs in his first 4 years.

Actually, it's more like about 3.2 million, presuming the preliminary estimates are correct for September and October of 2012. But, of course, the year isn't over and Obama hasn't actually served four years yet. Who knows how many jobs might be lost between now and January when he's inaugurated for his second term. Then, he will have served four years.

Well, you can always root for more unemployment....but I think you will be disappointed

We'll see. But, on the contrary, I think it's the left who is rooting for more unemployment. They're the ones who elected you know who.

 

[candycorn]

I can't fathom why any business who has the option would still have an Obama voter on the payroll.

There appears to be no limit on things you cannot fathom.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, it's more like about 3.2 million, presuming the preliminary estimates are correct for September and October of 2012. But, of course, the year isn't over and Obama hasn't actually served four years yet. Who knows how many jobs might be lost between now and January when he's inaugurated for his second term. Then, he will have served four years.

Well, you can always root for more unemployment....but I think you will be disappointed

We'll see. But, on the contrary, I think it's the left who is rooting for more unemployment. They're the ones who elected you know who.

Our Presidents policies have resulted in positive growth in the private sector for 30 consecutive months. Why do you root against that?

 

[candycorn]

Actually, it's more like about 3.2 million, presuming the preliminary estimates are correct for September and October of 2012. But, of course, the year isn't over and Obama hasn't actually served four years yet. Who knows how many jobs might be lost between now and January when he's inaugurated for his second term. Then, he will have served four years.

Well, you can always root for more unemployment....but I think you will be disappointed

We'll see. But, on the contrary, I think it's the left who is rooting for more unemployment. They're the ones who elected you know who.

The economy is actually gaining jobs. Brighten up sock boy

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, you can always root for more unemployment....but I think you will be disappointed

We'll see. But, on the contrary, I think it's the left who is rooting for more unemployment. They're the ones who elected you know who.

Our Presidents policies have resulted in positive growth in the private sector for 30 consecutive months. Why do you root against that?

Your fucking president has 43 consecutive months of unemployment of 8% or higher.

 

[JoeB131]

]And if he didn't start that business, there would be no need for people to work very hard for him and the rest of us to provide him with utilities and resources and tax breaks. And, if he didn't start that business, those who work very hard for him wouldn't be receiving a paycheck. And, those utilities wouldn't be receiving a paycheck. And, those providing those resources wouldn't be receiving a paycheck. However, at least, he wouldn't be needing the tax breaks. But, additionally, he wouldn't be needing to pay taxes...either.

And, go ahead and look at the help the rest of us are giving him. But, the more burden you put on him, all this is going to do is have a domino effect and aggravate things even more. It's like this one individual I was arguing with on Huffington Post in a story concerning Papa Johns Pizza. The individual I was arguing with proclaimed everyone should boycott Papa Johns Pizza because they decided they have to reduce workers' hours in order to reduce the impact of Obamacare. Yeah, that's the typical STUPID mindset of a leftist. All that's going to do is aggravate the situation even worse and cause the owner of Papa Johns to probably have to reduce workers' hours even more or, completely eliminate any benefits they might enjoy or, he might even have to let employees go altogether. And, I suspect, if these workers had the choice between reduced hours or not having a job at all? They'd probably take the reduced hours and they probably wouldn't appreciate anyone biting off THEIR nose, to spite the moron who's boycotting Papa Johns face.
]

Papa Johns is a big corporation that is traded on the stock exchange, sponsors a bowl game, pays its CEO 8 million a year.

And when they are told they have to provide health care to their employees, they want to reduce their hours to make them exempt? Seriously?

And this is where workers in this country have screwed up. We don't punish the bad actors.

Frankly, I would boycott Papa Johns, if I didn't already boycott them because their pizza tastes like cardboard flavored with tomato.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, you can always root for more unemployment....but I think you will be disappointed

We'll see. But, on the contrary, I think it's the left who is rooting for more unemployment. They're the ones who elected you know who.

The economy is actually gaining jobs. Brighten up sock boy

What job growth? Yes some jobs have been added but at what rate of pay are those new hires being paid? Are they making more or less than what they are use to making?

 

[Freewill]

?

link?

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

No due process. Cruel and unusual punishment without even being accused of a crime in a court of law.

To think Nixon and Clinton got impeached for lying.

All of a sudden your side is concerned with collateral damage and the court of law?

Hey, RUN with that with an ounce of consistency and I'll get back to you.

All of a sudden your side doesn't give a damn.

 

[House]

We'll see. But, on the contrary, I think it's the left who is rooting for more unemployment. They're the ones who elected you know who.

The economy is actually gaining jobs. Brighten up sock boy

What job growth? Yes some jobs have been added but at what rate of pay are those new hires being paid? Are they making more or less than what they are use to making?

Unemployed and underemployed are two different terms.

Stop confusing them.

 

[rightwinger]

We'll see. But, on the contrary, I think it's the left who is rooting for more unemployment. They're the ones who elected you know who.

Our Presidents policies have resulted in positive growth in the private sector for 30 consecutive months. Why do you root against that?

Your fucking president has 43 consecutive months of unemployment of 8% or higher.

Yea....that happens when Republicans give you an economy that is losing 770,000 jobs a month

Bush doubled his unemployment rate, Obama remained the same

Why would anyone want to vote republican?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Our Presidents policies have resulted in positive growth in the private sector for 30 consecutive months. Why do you root against that?

Your fucking president has 43 consecutive months of unemployment of 8% or higher.

Yea....that happens when Republicans give you an economy that is losing 770,000 jobs a month

Bush doubled his unemployment rate, Obama remained the same

Why would anyone want to vote republican?

last two years of Bush the democrats and obama were in control why didn't they stop the crash?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The economy is actually gaining jobs. Brighten up sock boy

What job growth? Yes some jobs have been added but at what rate of pay are those new hires being paid? Are they making more or less than what they are use to making?

Unemployed and underemployed are two different terms.

Stop confusing them.

They confuse themselves so easily just keeping up with what they start with.

 

[rightwinger]

Your fucking president has 43 consecutive months of unemployment of 8% or higher.

Yea....that happens when Republicans give you an economy that is losing 770,000 jobs a month

Bush doubled his unemployment rate, Obama remained the same

Why would anyone want to vote republican?

last two years of Bush the democrats and obama were in control why didn't they stop the crash?

They did not pass a single piece of legislation that would have led to the economic collapse. Also, unlike Republicans they supported Bush in most of his attempts to fix a collapsing economy

You did not see Democrats in 2007-2008 saying......Bush must fail

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yea....that happens when Republicans give you an economy that is losing 770,000 jobs a month

Bush doubled his unemployment rate, Obama remained the same

Why would anyone want to vote republican?

last two years of Bush the democrats and obama were in control why didn't they stop the crash?

They did not pass a single piece of legislation that would have led to the economic collapse. Also, unlike Republicans they supported Bush in most of his attempts to fix a collapsing economy

You did not see Democrats in 2007-2008 saying......Bush must fail

You mean the democrats failed to stop the crash. what else could t be? obama would never have won the first time if the economy was doing good.