In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

TMT

Why the September Jobs Report Is So Brutal
By Liz Wolgemuth Liz Wolgemuth
Fri Oct 2, 12:55 pm ET

Employers in the United States continue to be more interested in
cutting their payrolls than in keeping their existing employees, let
alone adding new ones. Employers slashed another 263,000 jobs last
month, the Labor Department reported today. That brings nonfarm
employment down to the level of 2004, when there were about 7 million
fewer U.S. workers.

Workers are dropping out: The unemployment rate edged up only
slightly, to 9.8 percent, but the number of workers in the labor force
fell by 571,000, suggesting the unemployment rate could have been much
worse. The ranks of the marginally attached--workers who have dropped
out of the workforce because they believe they won't find jobs or
because they have other responsibilities, such as school--have grown
by 615,000 over the year.


There are not enough jobs: A bill that would provide another 13 weeks
of federally funded unemployment benefits to hard-hit states sailed
through the House last week but may be complicated by some senators'
efforts to get benefit extensions for all states. In some states,
eligible workers have already received as many as 79 weeks of
benefits. Historically, spells of unemployment that lasted a year or
more were very rare, says Harvard economist Lawrence Katz, a Harvard
economist. These trends are the sorts that haven't been seen since the
Great Depression.


Indeed, the number of workers who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or
more--called "long-term unemployed"--rose by 450,000, to 5.4 million.
Last month, 36 percent of the unemployed had been out of work for at
least six months. The unemployed face a market in which job seekers
outnumber job openings by a ratio of 6 to 1.

Governments are now feeling the heat: While most other industries
slashed jobs throughout the recession, the government sector held up
pretty well, helping cushion capital cities from the roughest economic
patches. Last month, however, strains on local governments started to
show. Government employment fell by 53,000, with the largest
drop--24,000 jobs--in the noneducation component of local governments.


Progress has slowed: September job losses were much worse than most
economists expected--the median estimate was a loss of 175,000. The
government also revised the prior data to show 201,000 jobs were lost
in August, rather than the 216,000 originally reported, meaning the
trend of narrowing job losses really shifted last month. "Today's
report suggests that the progress toward a recovery in labor market
conditions has stalled," Ted Weiseman and David Greenlaw, economists
at Morgan Stanley, said in a morning note. "We continue to expect to
see some eventual follow through on the hiring side, given the recent
improvement in production and demand, but the September data reinforce
the fact that some important headwinds remain."


Hours fell back down: Along with payroll cuts, many employers have
slashed their workers' hours to help lower expenses, and there are now
9.2 million "involuntary" part-time workers (those who would prefer
full-time work). The average workweek edged up in August, but
September erased the gain, and the workweek is again at a record low
33.0 hours.

Construction and manufacturing are still hurting: Since the start of
the recession, 1.5 million jobs have been erased in the construction
industry. Employers in construction slashed 64,000 jobs last month,
which, at least, was fewer than they were cutting late last year and
earlier this year. The pain was greatest in nonresidential components,
where 39,000 jobs were cut. Manufacturing lost 51,000 jobs. That's
also fewer than were being cut earlier in the recession, but
manufacturing payrolls have shrunk by 2.1 million since the start of
the downturn.


The future is unclear: One of the most difficult things to understand
about September's jobs report is how far the job market reality was
from the government's stimulus forecast. The White House estimated
that with the stimulus, the unemployment rate would peak at 8 percent.
Without a clear plan to stimulate future job growth, it's unclear how
long it will take for the 15.1 million unemployed to gain re-
employment in any significant volume. Employers tend to shy away from
the risk of new hires until they are confident of the state of the
economy. Even for the long-term unemployed, "when the economy is
chugging along, firms are willing to take a chance" on hiring and
training, says Katz.


Still, the market is improving, as job losses are much less than they
were last winter. "What is still very much open to question is how
fast the move will be to stabilization of payrolls and eventually to
job growth," says Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at MFR. "We
continue to believe that the process will be a slow one and that
households will be contending with weak income growth and balance
sheet issues for some time."

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

TMT


As a small business owner, I see the potential disaster that liberal health
care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and other liberal
policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. Why should I risk capital or
hire people? You liberals just don't get it, "cut the goose open and get
ALL the gold!"

Too_Many_Tools wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:

In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

Here's a tougher one - accomplishing anything beneficial to the citizens of
the United States of America.

Another tougher one - earning even the slightest scintilla of credibility
now that 0'Bammy has backed away from every campaign promise that helped to
get him elected.


In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

The jobs will come from the very place that 0'Bammy is working desperately
to alienate - small, non-union, businesses - in his efforts to pay corrupt
Unions back for their support.

Social[ist] programs attack small businesses - where the jobs are - in
their attempts to placate Unions whose members have been rendered
unemployable by the demands of their "leadership".

Face it, booby, Socialism and Unionism are dead ducks that, in their
passage, have destroyed the hopes and dreams that they claimed to foster.




--

I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules.

Buerste wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

TMT


As a small business owner, I see the potential disaster that liberal
health care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and
other liberal policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. Why should
I risk capital or hire people? You liberals just don't get it, "cut
the goose open and get ALL the gold!"

That's one way of looking at things Tom.
The other is that the public interest and yours aren't the same.
IOW, who would really care much about Ohio Brush?
You and the Wright Brothers, as a class, can share the same grave without
the slightest damage to the US economy going forward.
In fact, it can easily be argued that efforts to keep you alive are actually
counterproductive and a real drag on America's future.

Well Done.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

TMT


As a small business owner, I see the potential disaster that liberal
health care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and
other liberal policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. Why should
I risk capital or hire people? You liberals just don't get it, "cut
the goose open and get ALL the gold!"

That's one way of looking at things Tom.
The other is that the public interest and yours aren't the same.
IOW, who would really care much about Ohio Brush?
You and the Wright Brothers, as a class, can share the same grave without
the slightest damage to the US economy going forward.
In fact, it can easily be argued that efforts to keep you alive are
actually
counterproductive and a real drag on America's future.

Well Done.


--
John R. Carroll


As usual, you missed the point. Small businesses create most of the jobs.
Democrats like to punish these people with absurd taxes and regulations.
NONE of us (successful small businesses like me) are going to risk anything
in uncertain times unless there is a very good chance of reward for that
risk and not have the Democrats in temporary power steal it all to buy
votes.

So, you can think all small businesses can go away...it just shows how
stupidly you and the rest of the libtards think. Oh that's right, you think
you will STILL get a cheese-check no matter what. Laugh...laugh...laugh!

Some people seem to believe that with more taxes, people will tend to
work less and businesses will hire less.

This view is, at best, simplistic, and at worst, less than sincere.

I would like to point out that it is much more complicated than that
and effects of taxation, outside of extremes like 100% taxes, are not
nearly as obvious.

Here's an example.

Let's say that a worker earns 100 dollars per hour. Let's say that
presently he is taxed at 30%, so his actual cash income is $70 per
hour.

This worker certain needs, such as a mortgage, a car loan, a kept
mistress on the side, and a hobby workshop.

Suddenly the taxes increase and instead of 30%, the government takes
40%, so the worker's cash income falls from 70 dollars an hour to 60
dollars an hour.

Would this worker choose to work more hours, to maintain his
previous lifestyle, or less hours, due to being discouraged?

The answer is not at all a given and depends on the worker's utility
curve, specifically the utility of free time and the marginal utility
of the extra goods that he can no longer afford due to higher taxes,
as well as how elastic his expenses are. This hypothetical worker
probably cannot pay less mortgage, but perhaps he can reduce the
presents to the mistress.

As everyone's financial and leisure priorities are different, the
result of higher taxes on the total hours worked, likely would involve
a mix of work reductions and work increases.

This obvious consideration was pointed out to me at the University of
Chicago business school, approximately 12 years ago.

i

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 18:42:39 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

TMT

As a small business owner, I see the potential disaster that liberal health
care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and other liberal
policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. Why should I risk capital or
hire people? You liberals just don't get it, "cut the goose open and get
ALL the gold!"

===========
Indeed they do, but the problem appears to be that the old "rules
of thumb" no longer apply.

While getting hard data is like pulling teeth out of an emu, it
does indeed appear that the Obama health care reform [as far as
it can be determined what this means from minute to minute] is
likely to be a disaster. On the other hand the health care status
quo [provided through/by the employer] is projected as equally
likely to be a debacle.

Many of the hospitals in the major urban areas are already
showing signs of collapse as their emergency rooms are over-run
with non-emergency routine medical cases to the point where
emergency care is compromised, and from a financial perspective
are unable to collect *ANY* compensation for services, i.e. they
can't get blood out of a turnip, but are required by law to
provide medical care.

While the name [free market capitalism] of the game has remained
the same for over 200 years, the implicit rules of the game, and
the society/culture in which the game is embedded, have mutated
beyond recognition, with Darwinian/Spencerian capitalism for the
many [individuals and small businesses] and cradle to grave
socialism for the chosen few [too big to fail corporations].

This is not about you, but rather is a basic sociatal/cultural
paradigm shift, with health care as the most obvious current
symptom, to a far more corporate/fascist governmental mindset,
with only minimal involvement of the obsolete and archaic
liberal/conservative blocs, that are still fighting the cold war
and the great depression, and see every problem/opportunity in
those terms, thus tilting at windmills ala Don Quixote de la
Mancha.

We are living in interesting times...


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Ignoramus16474" wrote in message
...
Some people seem to believe that with more taxes, people will tend to
work less and businesses will hire less.

This view is, at best, simplistic, and at worst, less than sincere.

I would like to point out that it is much more complicated than that
and effects of taxation, outside of extremes like 100% taxes, are not
nearly as obvious.

Here's an example.

Let's say that a worker earns 100 dollars per hour. Let's say that
presently he is taxed at 30%, so his actual cash income is $70 per
hour.

This worker certain needs, such as a mortgage, a car loan, a kept
mistress on the side, and a hobby workshop.

Suddenly the taxes increase and instead of 30%, the government takes
40%, so the worker's cash income falls from 70 dollars an hour to 60
dollars an hour.

Would this worker choose to work more hours, to maintain his
previous lifestyle, or less hours, due to being discouraged?

The answer is not at all a given and depends on the worker's utility
curve, specifically the utility of free time and the marginal utility
of the extra goods that he can no longer afford due to higher taxes,
as well as how elastic his expenses are. This hypothetical worker
probably cannot pay less mortgage, but perhaps he can reduce the
presents to the mistress.

As everyone's financial and leisure priorities are different, the
result of higher taxes on the total hours worked, likely would involve
a mix of work reductions and work increases.

This obvious consideration was pointed out to me at the University of
Chicago business school, approximately 12 years ago.

i

From a different point of view, consider the effect of taxing the business
that provides that $100/hr job. Can the business expend capital (risk) to
expand and hire more $100 workers? Or, buy new equipment built by companies
that hire other $100/hr workers? With more capital going into the
bottomless pit of government, there is less capital available to hire people
and buy equipment. Less money in the whole system means less presents for
mistresses, less demand for all sorts of goods which leads to less
production and less jobs.

In my little world, my accounts are in great shape, I'm lucky enough to be
almost recession proof. BUT, I'm not risking ANYTHING! The standing order
is not to buy anything we don't absolutely have to have and watch every
penny. No landscaping projects, no new lunchroom furniture, no new
computers, no luxuries!

These are uncertain times, the health care fiasco, the cap-n-tax scam, and
the massive spending of this administration frighten the hell out of
me...why should I risk? I will just hunker down and wait for the end of
this administration. And, if I don't risk, the landscapers, computer
makers, furniture makers and luxury makers LAY PEOPLE OFF!!! It's not just
me, it's most small business owners in general feel the same way. No mater
what the liberals say, it won't change this. PLEASE, TELL ME YOU GET IT!

On Oct 2, 5:42*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...

In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

TMT

As a small business owner, I see the potential disaster that liberal health
care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and other liberal
policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. *Why should I risk capital or
hire people? *You liberals just don't get it, "cut the goose open and get
ALL the gold!"

The subject is "How and where will the new jobs come from?"

I take it that you are saying that you will not create any new jobs.

Thanks for playing.

TMT

On Oct 2, 5:56*pm, Eregon wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:

In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

Here's a tougher one - accomplishing anything beneficial to the citizens of
the United States of America.

Another tougher one - earning even the slightest scintilla of credibility
now that 0'Bammy has backed away from every campaign promise that helped to
get him elected.



In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

The jobs will come from the very place that 0'Bammy is working desperately
to alienate - small, non-union, businesses - in his efforts to pay corrupt
Unions back for their support.

Social[ist] programs attack small businesses - where the jobs are - in
their attempts to placate Unions whose members have been rendered
unemployable by the demands of their "leadership".

Face it, booby, Socialism and Unionism are dead ducks that, in their
passage, have destroyed the hopes and dreams that they claimed to foster.

--

I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules.

The subject is "How and where will the new jobs come from?"

I take it your answer indicates you do not know.

Thanks for playing.


TMT

On Oct 2, 9:36*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in messagenews:yMCdnVlGfrOvF1vXnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@gigan ews.com...



Buerste wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
....
In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

TMT

As a small business owner, I see the potential disaster that liberal
health care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and
other liberal policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. *Why should
I risk capital or hire people? *You liberals just don't get it, "cut
the goose open and get ALL the gold!"

That's one way of looking at things Tom.
The other is that the public interest and yours aren't the same.
IOW, who would really care much about Ohio Brush?
You and the Wright Brothers, as a class, *can share the same grave without
the slightest damage to the US economy going forward.
In fact, it can easily be argued that efforts to keep you alive are
actually
counterproductive and a real drag on America's future.

Well Done.

--
John R. Carroll

As usual, you missed the point. *Small businesses create most of the jobs.
Democrats like to punish these people with absurd taxes and regulations.
NONE of us (successful small businesses like me) are going to risk anything
in uncertain times unless there is a very good chance of reward for that
risk and not have the Democrats in temporary power steal it all to buy
votes.

So, you can think all small businesses can go away...it just shows how
stupidly you and the rest of the libtards think. *Oh that's right, you think
you will STILL get a cheese-check no matter what. *Laugh...laugh...laugh!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So says a winger who wishes ill for the United States of America.

TMT

On Oct 2, 10:40*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"Ignoramus16474" wrote in message

...





Some people seem to believe that with more taxes, people will tend to
work less and businesses will hire less.

This view is, at best, simplistic, and at worst, less than sincere.

I would like to point out that it is much more complicated than that
and effects of taxation, outside of extremes like 100% taxes, are not
nearly as obvious.

Here's an example.

Let's say that a worker earns 100 dollars per hour. Let's say that
presently he is taxed at 30%, so his actual cash income is $70 per
hour.

This worker certain needs, such as a mortgage, a car loan, a kept
mistress on the side, and a hobby workshop.

Suddenly the taxes increase and instead of 30%, the government takes
40%, so the worker's cash income falls from 70 dollars an hour to 60
dollars an hour.

Would this worker choose to work more hours, to maintain his
previous lifestyle, or less hours, due to being discouraged?

The answer is not at all a given and depends on the worker's utility
curve, specifically the utility of free time and the marginal utility
of the extra goods that he can no longer afford due to higher taxes,
as well as how elastic his expenses are. This hypothetical worker
probably cannot pay less mortgage, but perhaps he can reduce the
presents to the mistress.

As everyone's financial and leisure priorities are different, the
result of higher taxes on the total hours worked, likely would involve
a mix of work reductions and work increases.

This obvious consideration was pointed out to me at the University of
Chicago business school, approximately 12 years ago.

i

From a different point of view, consider the effect of taxing the business
that provides that $100/hr job. *Can the business expend capital (risk) to
expand and hire more $100 workers? *Or, buy new equipment built by companies
that hire other $100/hr workers? *With more capital going into the
bottomless pit of government, there is less capital available to hire people
and buy equipment. *Less money in the whole system means less presents for
mistresses, less demand for all sorts of goods which leads to less
production and less jobs.

In my little world, my accounts are in great shape, I'm lucky enough to be
almost recession proof. *BUT, I'm not risking ANYTHING! *The standing order
is not to buy anything we don't absolutely have to have and watch every
penny. *No landscaping projects, no new lunchroom furniture, no new
computers, *no luxuries!

These are uncertain times, the health care fiasco, the cap-n-tax scam, and
the massive spending of this administration frighten the hell out of
me...why should I risk? *I will just hunker down and wait for the end of
this administration. *And, if I don't risk, the landscapers, computer
makers, furniture makers and luxury makers LAY PEOPLE OFF!!! * It's not just
me, it's most small business owners in general feel the same way. *No mater
what the liberals say, it won't change this. *PLEASE, TELL ME YOU GET IT!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So if you have nothing to risk, why are you bitching like Sarah Palin
in heat?

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Oct 2, 5:56 pm, Eregon wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote in
rec.crafts.metalworking:

In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

Here's a tougher one - accomplishing anything beneficial to the citizens
of
the United States of America.

Another tougher one - earning even the slightest scintilla of credibility
now that 0'Bammy has backed away from every campaign promise that helped
to
get him elected.



In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

The jobs will come from the very place that 0'Bammy is working desperately
to alienate - small, non-union, businesses - in his efforts to pay corrupt
Unions back for their support.

Social[ist] programs attack small businesses - where the jobs are - in
their attempts to placate Unions whose members have been rendered
unemployable by the demands of their "leadership".

Face it, booby, Socialism and Unionism are dead ducks that, in their
passage, have destroyed the hopes and dreams that they claimed to foster.

--

I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules.

The subject is "How and where will the new jobs come from?"

I take it your answer indicates you do not know.

Thanks for playing.


TMT



And what real jobs will a union create? Excluding Union Organizer and Union
Goon.

On Oct 3, 10:58*pm, "CalifBill" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
On Oct 2, 5:56 pm, Eregon wrote:





Too_Many_Tools wrote in
rec.crafts.metalworking:

In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

Here's a tougher one - accomplishing anything beneficial to the citizens
of
the United States of America.

Another tougher one - earning even the slightest scintilla of credibility
now that 0'Bammy has backed away from every campaign promise that helped
to
get him elected.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

The jobs will come from the very place that 0'Bammy is working desperately
to alienate - small, non-union, businesses - in his efforts to pay corrupt
Unions back for their support.

Social[ist] programs attack small businesses - where the jobs are - in
their attempts to placate Unions whose members have been rendered
unemployable by the demands of their "leadership".

Face it, booby, Socialism and Unionism are dead ducks that, in their
passage, have destroyed the hopes and dreams that they claimed to foster.

On Oct 4, 2:15*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Oct 2, 5:56*pm, Eregon wrote:



Too_Many_Tools wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:

In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

Here's a tougher one - accomplishing anything beneficial to the citizens of
the United States of America.

Another tougher one - earning even the slightest scintilla of credibility
now that 0'Bammy has backed away from every campaign promise that helped to
get him elected.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

The jobs will come from the very place that 0'Bammy is working desperately
to alienate - small, non-union, businesses - in his efforts to pay corrupt
Unions back for their support.

Social[ist] programs attack small businesses - where the jobs are - in
their attempts to placate Unions whose members have been rendered
unemployable by the demands of their "leadership".

Face it, booby, Socialism and Unionism are dead ducks that, in their
passage, have destroyed the hopes and dreams that they claimed to foster.

On Oct 4, 1:42*am, Eregon wrote:
"CalifBill" wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:

The subject is "How and where will the new jobs come from?"

I take it your answer indicates you do not know.

Virtually all of the jobs will originate in small, privately-owned, non-
union businesses.

The rest of the jobs will be as staffers for politicians that displace the
current incumbents. grin

Union Leaders may well be advised to start up a new Union - one dedicated
to finding jobs for former Union Leaders...

--

I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules.

You mean like all of those unemployed Bush/Cheney staffers?

Hmmm...isn't Sarah Palin unemployed?

I wonder if she is on public welfare along with her unemployed
husband.

Looks like maybe we should get back on subject and discuss where the
new good paying jobs will come from.

TMT

Buerste wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

TMT


As a small business owner, I see the potential disaster that liberal
health care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and
other liberal policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. Why should
I risk capital or hire people? You liberals just don't get it, "cut
the goose open and get ALL the gold!"

That's one way of looking at things Tom.
The other is that the public interest and yours aren't the same.
IOW, who would really care much about Ohio Brush?
You and the Wright Brothers, as a class, can share the same grave
without the slightest damage to the US economy going forward.
In fact, it can easily be argued that efforts to keep you alive are
actually
counterproductive and a real drag on America's future.

Well Done.


--
John R. Carroll


As usual, you missed the point. Small businesses create most of the
jobs.

Dumb ass.
Universal, public option health care would mean no more workman's comp
premiums.

--
John R. Carroll

On Oct 4, 7:09*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

It makes it even MORE economically attractive for Tom to invest in new, more
productive equipment, so he can compete. Reducing wages then moves his
equilibrium point up for a while, and then it just reduces aggregate demand.
Individually, Tom won't notice it. But if other small businessmen do the
same thing, we'll all notice it.


But investing on more productive equipment means that Tom can employ
fewer workers. So this is not where the jobs are going to come from.

Dan


--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
You don't have your shop-made equipment on your books?? How do you report
your assets when you go for a loan? Don't you have business property taxes
in Ohio? Tom, Tom...have you undervalued your assets? g


My accountant states that I can't take $2k in steel and $2k in parts and $5k
in labor and capitalize it as a $50k machine...which is what it would cost
to buy it or have it built. We write it off as shop expense, perfectly
legal. As far as assets for loans, the building and property, paid for,
more than cover any loans we would want.

On Oct 4, 9:38*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Ooooooo...TWO WHOLE JOBS!

Sounds like a recession proof business to me.

No wonder you are bitching like Sarah Palin in heat.

TMT

So how many jobs did you create? Numbers please.

Dan

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

TMT


As a small business owner, I see the potential disaster that liberal
health care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and
other liberal policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. Why should
I risk capital or hire people? You liberals just don't get it, "cut
the goose open and get ALL the gold!"

That's one way of looking at things Tom.
The other is that the public interest and yours aren't the same.
IOW, who would really care much about Ohio Brush?
You and the Wright Brothers, as a class, can share the same grave
without the slightest damage to the US economy going forward.
In fact, it can easily be argued that efforts to keep you alive are
actually
counterproductive and a real drag on America's future.

Well Done.


--
John R. Carroll


As usual, you missed the point. Small businesses create most of the
jobs.

Dumb ass.
Universal, public option health care would mean no more workman's comp
premiums.

--
John R. Carroll



It's not a health care bill itself that destabilizes, it's the fact that
Democrat politicians are involved that is destabilizing...nobody trusts them
to do anything other than what's good for Democrat politicians.

On Oct 4, 9:12*am, " wrote:
On Oct 4, 2:15*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:





On Oct 2, 5:56*pm, Eregon wrote:

Too_Many_Tools wrote in rec.crafts.metalworking:

In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

Here's a tougher one - accomplishing anything beneficial to the citizens of
the United States of America.

Another tougher one - earning even the slightest scintilla of credibility
now that 0'Bammy has backed away from every campaign promise that helped to
get him elected.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

The jobs will come from the very place that 0'Bammy is working desperately
to alienate - small, non-union, businesses - in his efforts to pay corrupt
Unions back for their support.

Social[ist] programs attack small businesses - where the jobs are - in
their attempts to placate Unions whose members have been rendered
unemployable by the demands of their "leadership".

Face it, booby, Socialism and Unionism are dead ducks that, in their
passage, have destroyed the hopes and dreams that they claimed to foster.

--

I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules..

The subject is "How and where will the new jobs come from?"

I take it your answer indicates you do not know.

Thanks for playing.

TMT

You are the one that asked where will the new jobs come from. *So it
is obvious that you do not know.

Tom's answer is that they will not come as a result of the things the
Democrats are doing. *Most new jobs will come from small businesses.
And small businesses will not create new jobs unless they believe that
the return is worth the risk. So no new jobs until the there is a
change in the governments direction.

There is currently a lot of excess capacity. * So no new jobs for a
while.
That is likely to have an effect on the midterm elections.
Unfortunately the Democrats that are likely to lose their seats are
the moderate Democrats.
So we are likely to *have a Congress that accomplishes very little for
the next four or six years.

So I guess the answer to where the new jobs will come from is that
they will come from companies that are not in the US.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Another winger bitching like Sarah Palin in heat.

Sounds like wingers are looking for corporate welfare.

Get off your butt and make your own opportunities.

TMT

"Buerste" wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
You don't have your shop-made equipment on your books?? How do you report
your assets when you go for a loan? Don't you have business property taxes
in Ohio? Tom, Tom...have you undervalued your assets? g


My accountant states that I can't take $2k in steel and $2k in parts and $5k
in labor and capitalize it as a $50k machine...which is what it would cost
to buy it or have it built. We write it off as shop expense, perfectly
legal. As far as assets for loans, the building and property, paid for,
more than cover any loans we would want.


The accountant where I used to work had the same thoughts on what the machines I made were
worth on the books.

To call it a 50K machine, you would have to set up another business unit, claim the
difference is profit less expenses and all that sort of thing getting you nowhere other
than putting a higher asset value on your machine and paying taxes on 'imaginary' income.

I have a feeling you have better things to do.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Oct 4, 4:30*pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Buerste wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
m...
Buerste wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...





In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

TMT

As a small business owner, I see the potential disaster that liberal
health care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and
other liberal policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. *Why should
I risk capital or hire people? *You liberals just don't get it, "cut
the goose open and get ALL the gold!"

That's one way of looking at things Tom.
The other is that the public interest and yours aren't the same.
IOW, who would really care much about Ohio Brush?
You and the Wright Brothers, as a class, *can share the same grave
without the slightest damage to the US economy going forward.
In fact, it can easily be argued that efforts to keep you alive are
actually
counterproductive and a real drag on America's future.

Well Done.

--
John R. Carroll

As usual, you missed the point. *Small businesses create most of the
jobs.

Dumb ass.
Universal, public option health care would mean no more workman's comp
premiums.

--
John R. Carroll- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep.

TMT

On Oct 4, 5:24*pm, " wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:09*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

It makes it even MORE economically attractive for Tom to invest in new, more
productive equipment, so he can compete. Reducing wages then moves his
equilibrium point up for a while, and then it just reduces aggregate demand.
Individually, Tom won't notice it. But if other small businessmen do the
same thing, we'll all notice it.

But investing on more productive equipment means that Tom can employ
fewer workers. *So this is not where the jobs are going to come from.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan



--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

More productive equipment means you can shift your staff to grow your
business..and create more jobs.

TMT

On Oct 4, 11:40*pm, Too_Many_Tools

Another winger bitching like Sarah Palin in heat.

Sounds like wingers are looking for corporate welfare.

Get off your butt and make your own opportunities.

TMT

No bitching here. You wanted to know where the jobs were coming
from. And that is what I was answering.

I have already made my own opportunities and have no need to worry
about where the jobs are coming from. Don't need corporate welfare or
government welfare.

I may not be as rich as Sarah Palin, but I have enough that I am not
jealous of her money as you seem to be.

Dan

On Oct 4, 5:29*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...

You don't have your shop-made equipment on your books?? How do you report
your assets when you go for a loan? Don't you have business property taxes
in Ohio? Tom, Tom...have you undervalued your assets? g

My accountant states that I can't take $2k in steel and $2k in parts and $5k
in labor and capitalize it as a $50k machine...which is what it would cost
to buy it or have it built. *We write it off as shop expense, perfectly
legal. *As far as assets for loans, the building and property, paid for,
more than cover any loans we would want.

Why would you want to capitalize it as a $50K machine when it isn't
one?

Unless you wanted to cheat on your taxes.

TMT

On Oct 4, 5:31*pm, " wrote:
On Oct 4, 9:38*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:



Ooooooo...TWO WHOLE JOBS!

Sounds like a recession proof business to me.

No wonder you are bitching like Sarah Palin in heat.

TMT

So how many jobs did you create? *Numbers please.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

More than TWO WHOLE JOBS.

ROTFLMAO

I guess it just goes to show that the more a winger bitches, the less
he is contributing to the bottom line.

TMT

On Oct 4, 5:33*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in ...





Buerste wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
om...
Buerste wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

....
In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

TMT

As a small business owner, I see the potential disaster that liberal
health care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and
other liberal policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. *Why should
I risk capital or hire people? *You liberals just don't get it, "cut
the goose open and get ALL the gold!"

That's one way of looking at things Tom.
The other is that the public interest and yours aren't the same.
IOW, who would really care much about Ohio Brush?
You and the Wright Brothers, as a class, *can share the same grave
without the slightest damage to the US economy going forward.
In fact, it can easily be argued that efforts to keep you alive are
actually
counterproductive and a real drag on America's future.

Well Done.

--
John R. Carroll

As usual, you missed the point. *Small businesses create most of the
jobs.

Dumb ass.
Universal, public option health care would mean no more workman's comp
premiums.

--
John R. Carroll

It's not a health care bill itself that destabilizes, it's the fact that
Democrat politicians are involved that is destabilizing...nobody trusts them
to do anything other than what's good for *Democrat politicians.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And history shows that the Republicans CANNOT BE TRUSTED.

But you are in a recession proof business so why do you care?


TMT

On 2009-10-03, Buerste wrote:

"Ignoramus16474" wrote in message
...
Some people seem to believe that with more taxes, people will tend to
work less and businesses will hire less.

This view is, at best, simplistic, and at worst, less than sincere.

I would like to point out that it is much more complicated than that
and effects of taxation, outside of extremes like 100% taxes, are not
nearly as obvious.

Here's an example.

.... example snipped...


From a different point of view, consider the effect of taxing the business
that provides that $100/hr job. Can the business expend capital (risk) to
expand and hire more $100 workers? Or, buy new equipment built by companies
that hire other $100/hr workers? With more capital going into the
bottomless pit of government, there is less capital available to hire people
and buy equipment. Less money in the whole system means less presents for
mistresses, less demand for all sorts of goods which leads to less
production and less jobs.

That's a good question and it took me a couple of days to think about
it.

The standard approach here is to say that any taxes on businesses that
are in a competitive industry, in the long run, are borne by their
customers, by way of paying a higher price for goods.

If we assume that a certain degree of business risk would demand a
certain amount of return on capital, the above makes sense.

In my little world, my accounts are in great shape, I'm lucky enough
to be almost recession proof. BUT, I'm not risking ANYTHING! The
standing order is not to buy anything we don't absolutely have to
have and watch every penny. No landscaping projects, no new
lunchroom furniture, no new computers, no luxuries!

These are uncertain times, the health care fiasco, the cap-n-tax
scam, and the massive spending of this administration frighten the
hell out of me...why should I risk? I will just hunker down and
wait for the end of this administration. And, if I don't risk, the
landscapers, computer makers, furniture makers and luxury makers LAY
PEOPLE OFF!!! It's not just me, it's most small business owners in
general feel the same way. No mater what the liberals say, it won't
change this. PLEASE, TELL ME YOU GET IT!

I do get it. But I think that you are overstating effects on changes
in tax rates on your business. Also, and more specifically to the
issue of alternatives to higher taxes, the effects of inflation are
more deleterious in many respects, and create even more business
uncertainty, than higher taxes.

i

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...

So how many jobs did you create? Numbers please.

Dan

More than TWO WHOLE JOBS.

TNT
Nobody believes you, you're a lib, you lie. Prove the jobs you created.
(Cashing your cheese-check doesn't count as a job.)

On Oct 4, 6:55*pm, " wrote:
On Oct 4, 11:40*pm, Too_Many_Tools

Another winger bitching like Sarah Palin in heat.

Sounds like wingers are looking for corporate welfare.

Get off your butt and make your own opportunities.

TMT

No bitching here. *You wanted to know where the jobs were coming
from. *And that is what I was answering.

I have already made my own opportunities and have no need to worry
about where the jobs are coming from. *Don't need corporate welfare or
government welfare.

I may not be as rich as Sarah Palin, but I have enough that I am not
jealous of her money as you seem to be.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

But you do bitch....Google doesn't lie.

How about telling us where the new jobs will be coming from?

TMT

On Oct 4, 7:44*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...

So how many jobs did you create? Numbers please.

Dan
More than TWO WHOLE JOBS.
TNT

Nobody believes you, you're a lib, you lie. *Prove the jobs you created..
(Cashing your cheese-check doesn't count as a job.)

LOL...PROVE THE TWO JOBS THAT YOU SUPPOSELY CREATED.

Lying winger.

TMT

On Oct 5, 12:59*am, Too_Many_Tools

So how many jobs did you create? *Numbers please.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

More than TWO WHOLE JOBS.

ROTFLMAO

I guess it just goes to show that the more a winger bitches, the less
he is contributing to the bottom line.

TMT

I still did not see any numbers.

Dan

On Oct 5, 2:07*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


But you do bitch....Google doesn't lie.

So you say, but offer no examples.


How about telling us where the new jobs will be coming from?

TMT

As I said there will not be any significant new jobs for a while. At
least that is my prediction.

Dan

On Oct 5, 12:55*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:


More productive equipment means you can shift your staff to grow your
business..and create more jobs.

TMT

Or lacking an increase in sales, cut your staff and still produce as
much.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Oct 4, 7:09 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

It makes it even MORE economically attractive for Tom to invest in new,
more
productive equipment, so he can compete. Reducing wages then moves his
equilibrium point up for a while, and then it just reduces aggregate
demand.
Individually, Tom won't notice it. But if other small businessmen do the
same thing, we'll all notice it.



But investing on more productive equipment means that Tom can employ
fewer workers. So this is not where the jobs are going to come from.

First, if you're right about that, then Tom is perpetuating a fraud when he
ties his investment to hiring more workers. g But that's not right. If
he's adding to equipment he'll have to add workers. If he REPLACES old
equipment with new, he *may* be able to reduce the number of workers. But
that's not likely. It would take a lot of investment, and his ROI probably
wouldn't stand up, in comparison with simply *adding* some new capacity to
increase his output.

--
Ed Huntress

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
You don't have your shop-made equipment on your books?? How do you report
your assets when you go for a loan? Don't you have business property
taxes in Ohio? Tom, Tom...have you undervalued your assets? g


My accountant states that I can't take $2k in steel and $2k in parts and
$5k in labor and capitalize it as a $50k machine...which is what it would
cost to buy it or have it built. We write it off as shop expense,
perfectly legal. As far as assets for loans, the building and property,
paid for, more than cover any loans we would want.

If $9,000 is all you invest in a machine, then, it doesn't sound like you're
inhibited in your investments by whatever it is you're complaining about.

I still don't get how you're claiming that costs are keeping you from
investing, but I don't think I'm going to learn much from this go-around.

--
Ed Huntress

"Buerste" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message

...
In my opinion, this is one of the toughest tasks for the Obama
Administration.

In your opinion, where will the jobs come from?

TMT


As a small business owner, I see the potential disaster that liberal
health care, cap and tax, increased taxes, increased regulations and
other liberal policies seemed to aimed at destroying me. Why should
I risk capital or hire people? You liberals just don't get it, "cut
the goose open and get ALL the gold!"

That's one way of looking at things Tom.
The other is that the public interest and yours aren't the same.
IOW, who would really care much about Ohio Brush?
You and the Wright Brothers, as a class, can share the same grave
without the slightest damage to the US economy going forward.
In fact, it can easily be argued that efforts to keep you alive are
actually
counterproductive and a real drag on America's future.

Well Done.


--
John R. Carroll


As usual, you missed the point. Small businesses create most of the
jobs.

Dumb ass.
Universal, public option health care would mean no more workman's comp
premiums.

--
John R. Carroll



It's not a health care bill itself that destabilizes, it's the fact that
Democrat politicians are involved that is destabilizing...nobody trusts
them to do anything other than what's good for Democrat politicians.

The latest Rasmussen poll shows an exact split: 44% trust Democrats more on
health care; 44% trust Republicans more.

You should get out more, Tom. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Oct 4, 8:55*pm, " wrote:
On Oct 5, 12:59*am, Too_Many_Tools



So how many jobs did you create? *Numbers please.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

More than TWO WHOLE JOBS.

ROTFLMAO

I guess it just goes to show that the more a winger bitches, the less
he is contributing to the bottom line.

TMT

I still did not see any numbers.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

Nor do I.

You say TWO WHOLE JOBS.

Prove it winger.

TMT