Redeye, GATT was created, and signed, just after WWII. You're referring to the WTO.
If you don't care about being factually accurate, what does that say about you?
For the record, NAFTA was negotiated by H W Bush, supported mainly by the GOP in the Senate, and signed by Clinton.
If you're a Republican, and you don't support free trade, I'd suggest you start looking for a different political party. The GOP supports NAFTA, CAFTA, and they support newer treaties for South American countries. As a centrist, Clinton also supported these, as has Obama (who is far from leftist in his views).
You may not want to acknowledge this, or maybe you just weren't aware of it previously, but nonetheless you're complaining about free trade is absurd considering your political allegiances.
Clinton signed GATT? I'm not sure how old Bill Clinton is, but he must have been pretty clever to be able to sign something that might have been created before he was even born!
Bigben, you proved what I said. Those people are counted for labor force statistics (albeit in a negative capacity).
Not working and being unemployed are two different things.
The unemployment rate is accurate. It doesn't matter if you, personally, don't like the definition of the term.
Much of the downward shifts in the size of the labor force, and LFPR, are natural given that baby-boomers are now hitting retirement age. Added to the fact that they had smaller families, means that less people overall will be in the work force. Though, this is only true in some parts of the US, like ours. It depends on demographics primarily, and the economy secondarily.
This could easily change, though, due to the Millennial generation which is larger than the baby boomer generation. In 10-15 years, I expect that the labor force will be larger even in places like Ohio and PA than it is now. As for the LFPR, who knows, that could stay steady over the long-term.
The people who quit looking for work, for whatever reason, are counted in the Labor Force. If the Labor Force decreased by 3,000 people, that means that 3,000 people have voluntarily quit looking for work, or retired, got disabled, joined the military, etc.
Of course, that's an estimate, but given the average age in the Valley, I'd guess it's accurate. But, those choosing not to look for work ARE counted within the Labor Force estimate.
On a side note, if someone voluntarily quits looking for work, then f-uck 'em, they don't deserve any help. Anyone who's been out of work for 2 or 3 years isn't anyone deserving of sympathy.
They should be closing all those small, rural post offices.
If a town doesn't have at least 5,000 people, they shouldn't have a post office. If people choose to live in the middle of nowhere, that's fine. But, they shouldn't be subsidized by those living in cities.
Small government, except for all those Conservatives who live in the sticks and demand government services.
I'd like to see some kind of investigation into how much big-box stores claim as "business expense deductions" when it comes to theft.
You know, a policy like this that claims to be about non-confrontation for fear of a lawsuit might actually be masking its real intent; tax write-offs.
Someone walks off with a $20 hose, but it becomes a $200 business expense in which they add all sorts of transaction costs, internal filing costs, etc. That $1000 worth of wiring, becomes $10,000 total business expense when it's filed.
Maybe I'm just being conspiratorial, but I think these types of stores actually want a certain amount of theft.
Fair, do you really think that the GOP is going to do anything different?
Another way of looking at this is that if it hadn't been for the government, you'd have NO pension today.
You want pension protection AND smaller government? You can't have both.
It's all moot anyway, you should've been unionized. You weren't, so you've got no leg to stand on. That's the problem with mid-level, salaried types. You think you're in the same league as the owners and execs, and don't need any union to fight your battles. You weren't, and you're damn lucky that the federal government stepped in and gave you anything.
I'd like to think that Romney's denunciation was because he's got enough decency to be against that ad.
Cynically, I think it may be because if Obama's religious leaders' views are fair game, then so too would Romney's Mormonism. In which case, Romney has far more to lose, since most Americans aren't actually very familiar with the Mormon religion. When they hear about it (which I'd have no doubt some PAC ad would do), it's going to hurt him tremendously in all the Midwest/South/Eastern states.
I hope his reasoning is the former, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually the latter.
RG Steel closure to idle 1,000
Redeye, GATT was created, and signed, just after WWII. You're referring to the WTO.
If you don't care about being factually accurate, what does that say about you?
For the record, NAFTA was negotiated by H W Bush, supported mainly by the GOP in the Senate, and signed by Clinton.
If you're a Republican, and you don't support free trade, I'd suggest you start looking for a different political party. The GOP supports NAFTA, CAFTA, and they support newer treaties for South American countries. As a centrist, Clinton also supported these, as has Obama (who is far from leftist in his views).
You may not want to acknowledge this, or maybe you just weren't aware of it previously, but nonetheless you're complaining about free trade is absurd considering your political allegiances.
May 26, 2012 at midnight permalink suggest removal
RG Steel closure to idle 1,000
Clinton signed GATT? I'm not sure how old Bill Clinton is, but he must have been pretty clever to be able to sign something that might have been created before he was even born!
May 25, 2012 at 8:44 p.m. permalink suggest removal
RG Steel closure to idle 1,000
Does anyone else see the irony in redeye complaining about Obama's "free trade" ideology?
For someone so Republican, redeye doesn't seem to understand his own party's platform.
May 25, 2012 at 6:54 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Valley leads state in economic growth, analyst says
Bigben, you proved what I said. Those people are counted for labor force statistics (albeit in a negative capacity).
Not working and being unemployed are two different things.
The unemployment rate is accurate. It doesn't matter if you, personally, don't like the definition of the term.
Much of the downward shifts in the size of the labor force, and LFPR, are natural given that baby-boomers are now hitting retirement age. Added to the fact that they had smaller families, means that less people overall will be in the work force. Though, this is only true in some parts of the US, like ours. It depends on demographics primarily, and the economy secondarily.
This could easily change, though, due to the Millennial generation which is larger than the baby boomer generation. In 10-15 years, I expect that the labor force will be larger even in places like Ohio and PA than it is now. As for the LFPR, who knows, that could stay steady over the long-term.
May 23, 2012 at 11:34 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Valley leads state in economic growth, analyst says
Bigben, you're a bit off base there.
The people who quit looking for work, for whatever reason, are counted in the Labor Force. If the Labor Force decreased by 3,000 people, that means that 3,000 people have voluntarily quit looking for work, or retired, got disabled, joined the military, etc.
Of course, that's an estimate, but given the average age in the Valley, I'd guess it's accurate. But, those choosing not to look for work ARE counted within the Labor Force estimate.
On a side note, if someone voluntarily quits looking for work, then f-uck 'em, they don't deserve any help. Anyone who's been out of work for 2 or 3 years isn't anyone deserving of sympathy.
May 23, 2012 at 4:36 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Justice is disappearing in U.S.
More people looking for a government handout. Nothing more.
May 20, 2012 at 9 a.m. permalink suggest removal
’13 USPS downsizing will curtail tax revenue
They should be closing all those small, rural post offices.
If a town doesn't have at least 5,000 people, they shouldn't have a post office. If people choose to live in the middle of nowhere, that's fine. But, they shouldn't be subsidized by those living in cities.
Small government, except for all those Conservatives who live in the sticks and demand government services.
May 19, 2012 at 1:25 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Terminated and frustrated
I'd like to see some kind of investigation into how much big-box stores claim as "business expense deductions" when it comes to theft.
You know, a policy like this that claims to be about non-confrontation for fear of a lawsuit might actually be masking its real intent; tax write-offs.
Someone walks off with a $20 hose, but it becomes a $200 business expense in which they add all sorts of transaction costs, internal filing costs, etc. That $1000 worth of wiring, becomes $10,000 total business expense when it's filed.
Maybe I'm just being conspiratorial, but I think these types of stores actually want a certain amount of theft.
May 19, 2012 at 1:21 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Biden blasts Romney anew at 2nd stop in Ohio
Fair, do you really think that the GOP is going to do anything different?
Another way of looking at this is that if it hadn't been for the government, you'd have NO pension today.
You want pension protection AND smaller government? You can't have both.
It's all moot anyway, you should've been unionized. You weren't, so you've got no leg to stand on. That's the problem with mid-level, salaried types. You think you're in the same league as the owners and execs, and don't need any union to fight your battles. You weren't, and you're damn lucky that the federal government stepped in and gave you anything.
May 18, 2012 at 5:57 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Romney denounces Obama-Wright ads
I'd like to think that Romney's denunciation was because he's got enough decency to be against that ad.
Cynically, I think it may be because if Obama's religious leaders' views are fair game, then so too would Romney's Mormonism. In which case, Romney has far more to lose, since most Americans aren't actually very familiar with the Mormon religion. When they hear about it (which I'd have no doubt some PAC ad would do), it's going to hurt him tremendously in all the Midwest/South/Eastern states.
I hope his reasoning is the former, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually the latter.
May 18, 2012 at 4:04 p.m. permalink suggest removal