Re: Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:49:25 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>SkippyPB wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yeah just think.  The middle and lower class might actually get a
>> break rather than the top 1% of the population.  You know those $4.00
>> a gallon prices you are paying or will be paying at the pump?  Those
>> oil companies are subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars by the
>> US government.  Thank you republicans.  That's really fair.
>
>Gas is $5.20/gallon in some parts of California. Still, that's not the
most 
>its ever been nor is that price anywhere NEAR the historical maximum in 
>terms of hours worked per gallong. As for the middle and lower cl***** 
>getting a tax break, well, they ought to get the same break as everyone 
>else.
>

It's higher in California because the state taxes are higher as are
the anti-pollution standards.  With crude oil selling today at over
$110 a barrel and with the summer blends about to be refined, I can
see $4.50 or more a gallon in states other than California or Hawaii
which generally have the highest rates per gallon.

And I'm not talking about tax breaks.  There are other areas that need
to be addressed that would help the middle and lower cl*****.  Getting
the deficit under control would help everyone, e.g.

>>
>> And the Dems didn't screw up anything.  The economy has been on a
>> downward slid ever since Bush took office.  They just changed the
>> numbers to make it look good.  The real unemployment rate is way over
>> 5% when you take into account those who are unemployed and don't file
>> for unemployment insurance any longer because their benefits ran out.
>
>Downward slide? Surely you jest. The unemployment rate is NOT based on
the 
>number of people who file for unemployment - that's a completely separate

>figure, as is the Household Unemployment rate.
>

That is just not true.  The insured unemployment rate or jobless rate
is calculated by dividing the number of insured unemployed by the
number of employees that are considered covered or eligible for
unemployment insurance. Covered employees represent those working as
well as those receiving unemployment benefits.

Once you quit receiving benefits, you are not part of this rate.  This
is acutally entitled the insured unemployment rate, aka jobless rate.

The unemployment rate that is re****ted monthly by the US Labor
Department is calculated by doing two surveys.

First, you have the the establishment survey which is based on a
sample of 400,000 business establishments. Notable statistics include
nonfarm payrolls, hours, and earnings.

Secondly, you have the household survey which covers nearly 60,000
households, and is mostly known for producing the unemployment rate
and other data related to the labor force.

Neither will give you the actual unemployment rate which is, in
reality, higher than what is re****ted.

The two surveys independently tally the number employed. While the
surveys tend to track each other over time, they can vary widely from
month to month. According to the BLS, the establishment survey's
nonfarm payroll results carry more weight. Yet the BLS also maintains
that both surveys are needed to obtain a more complete picture of the
overall labor market.

Each survey attempts to mend the other's shortfalls. While the
establishment survey can be more comprehensive because it covers a
larger sample, it doesn't include agricultural, private-household and
self-employed workers. These are counted in the household survey. Soft
employment conditions tend to increase the number of self-employed,
because many people who were laid off eventually start their own
businesses. Since the household survey includes the self-employed and
has a better chance of counting new hires at newly formed small
businesses, it can be the more useful survey when the economy is
exiting a period of soft conditions.

In addition to watching nonfarm payrolls, economists and analysts use
the labor re****t to gauge disposable income, wage inflation and
employment by industry.

>The very first thing the Democrats started muttering about when they took

>over the legislative branch was not extending the Bush tax cuts.
Businesses, 
>faced with the prospect of a significant tax increase in two or three
years 
>started making plans to address it. They cut back on planned expansions, 
>enlarging their facilities, hiring and training workers. They started 
>off-shore entities and incor****ated subsidiaries in more tax-friendly 
>jurisdictions.
>
>Just this past week, the Democrats passed a budget authorization bill
which, 
>for the first time, included repeal of the Bush tax cuts in two years. 
>Expect more businesses and individuals to take protective steps.
>
>

That is just ridiculous.  The main thrust behind the Bush tax cuts was
to spur economic growth.  Well it just didn't happen.  The draining of
resources to overseas workers was going on before Bush gave the tax
cuts.  It was supposed to stem the tide.  It didn't.

Besides, that budget bill you are talking about hasn't been passed
yet, so it, therefore, has had no effect and it probably won't pass in
its present form.

>>
>> The job growth that Bush likes to tout is almost all in the service
>> industry.  Those are jobs that barely pay minimum wage.  What he never
>> talks about are the thousands of manufacturing and technical jobs that
>> have been lost.
>
>Jesus! Adam Smith put this notion to rest over 200 years ago. It is GOOD 
>that the U.S. lose manufacturing jobs that can be done better elsewhere.
You 
>really should keep up.
>

Adam Smith's economics were great for the 1700's not the 2000's.  Tell
Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania among others that losing those
manufacturing jobs was a good thing.  I would argue that, in some
respects, losing those jobs was a good thing if it had forced
companies to retrain their work force to provide more technically
advanced jobs and services.  But it didn't because there was no
incentive to do so.  The only people who benefited from this loss were
the CEO's and Board Members, the mainstay of the Republican party. The
workers who were left out in the cold, the mainstay of the Democratic
party, have not benefited.


>>
>> The democrats voted to hold the telecom companies liable for Bush's
>> warrentless telephone taps.  The Republicans blocked it and Bush would
>> veto it anyway.
>
>Right. Democrats are on the side of the terrorists (and the trial lawyers
- 
>which is pretty much the same thing).
>
>
>

And The Republicans think the constitution is just a suggestion.

Regards,
          ////
         (o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the
kids to
copulate me."
--  ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve