Gun Jobs Up Almost 75% Under Obama



Good job, Obama! Creating jobs at last!

Quote:The gun industry has boomed over the past eight years resulting in a massive increase in gun-related jobs throughout the country.

The number of full-time jobs in the firearms industry increased from about 166,000 in 2008 to nearly 288,000, according to a new report from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, or NSSF. That represents a 73 percent increase.

In 2015 alone, the gun industry went from 263,223 jobs to 287,986, an increase of nearly 25,000 jobs.

The NSSF estimates that the gun industry currently has a total economic impact of nearly $50 billion. That’s up 158 percent from $19.1 billion in 2008. Wages in the industry rose 126 percent over the same time period. The average industry worker now receives $50,180 between wages and benefits.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-gun-...-75-obama/

(04-19-2016 02:45 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Gun Jobs Up Almost 75% Under Obama



Good job, Obama! Creating jobs at last!

Quote:The gun industry has boomed over the past eight years resulting in a massive increase in gun-related jobs throughout the country.

The number of full-time jobs in the firearms industry increased from about 166,000 in 2008 to nearly 288,000, according to a new report from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, or NSSF. That represents a 73 percent increase.

In 2015 alone, the gun industry went from 263,223 jobs to 287,986, an increase of nearly 25,000 jobs.

The NSSF estimates that the gun industry currently has a total economic impact of nearly $50 billion. That’s up 158 percent from $19.1 billion in 2008. Wages in the industry rose 126 percent over the same time period. The average industry worker now receives $50,180 between wages and benefits.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-gun-...-75-obama/

You're welcome.

Well, no president actually creates jobs, but if you can't see the actual job growth the past 7-8 years you're just being willfully dishonest.

And yes, I get it...many jobs are part-time...or what's also known as...a job.

Your statement is essentially true Tom, but you're ignoring that we spent TRILLIONS of borrowed dollars specifically to create those jobs... and as you note, the economy would have re-created the vast majority of them anyway... implying that contrary to what we were told, we threw a TON of money down a 'special interest' hole.

There are policies, and then there is spending. SOMETIMES they are the same thing, and sometimes they are not.

(04-19-2016 03:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Your statement is essentially true Tom, but you're ignoring that we spent TRILLIONS of borrowed dollars specifically to create those jobs... and as you note, the economy would have re-created the vast majority of them anyway... implying that contrary to what we were told, we threw a TON of money down a 'special interest' hole.

There are policies, and then there is spending. SOMETIMES they are the same thing, and sometimes they are not.

But you make it sound as if someone else would have done something different. All indications would have been that if Obama wasn't elected, McCain would have done the same thing.

And what's the Republican model? Cut Taxes...blow a huge whole in the deficit...and wait for the job creators to create jobs.

I prefer the Obama method. Slight tax raise...cut the deficit...and still create jobs. And yes, the Republican congress gets some credit for the curbing of spending.

Well, some not so good job news just came out this afternoon. Intel is to cut up to 12,000 jobs. That is 11% of their workforce. The world of computing is changing.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/intel-c...2016-04-19

Thanks Obama! Meet my newest:



(This pistol is a blast)

(04-19-2016 03:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Your statement is essentially true Tom, but you're ignoring that we spent TRILLIONS of borrowed dollars specifically to create those jobs... and as you note, the economy would have re-created the vast majority of them anyway... implying that contrary to what we were told, we threw a TON of money down a 'special interest' hole.

There are policies, and then there is spending. SOMETIMES they are the same thing, and sometimes they are not.

That's what got me the most about how the "stimulus" was spent...

When you get a windfall and decide to spend it you don't spend it on things who future annual cost will add to your future budget needs.

Bail out a school district hire 100 teachers and cops with your "stimulus" and then how do you pay for those 100 people next year? and the year after?

You essentially just burn money to buy favor.

We spent $862 billion... That's more than half of the money we needed to get all of our infrastructure into good repair (according to the American Association of Civil Engineers)..

$735 billion would have repaired every road, bridge, and public transit system in the country (According to AACE).

But nooooooooooo..... Gotta save those state Unions while they run up benefits that municipalities can't afford.

(04-19-2016 08:17 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 03:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Your statement is essentially true Tom, but you're ignoring that we spent TRILLIONS of borrowed dollars specifically to create those jobs... and as you note, the economy would have re-created the vast majority of them anyway... implying that contrary to what we were told, we threw a TON of money down a 'special interest' hole.

There are policies, and then there is spending. SOMETIMES they are the same thing, and sometimes they are not.

That's what got me the most about how the "stimulus" was spent...

When you get a windfall and decide to spend it you don't spend it on things who future annual cost will add to your future budget needs.

Bail out a school district hire 100 teachers and cops with your "stimulus" and then how do you pay for those 100 people next year? and the year after?

You essentially just burn money to buy favor.

We spent $862 billion... That's more than half of the money we needed to get all of our infrastructure into good repair (according to the American Association of Civil Engineers)..

$735 billion would have repaired every road, bridge, and public transit system in the country (According to AACE).

But nooooooooooo..... Gotta save those state Unions while they run up benefits that municipalities can't afford.

been telling you guys deflation is right around the corner unless Trump....

never underestimate the power of the Donald......

and the bolded is easily the most important aspect of your post (although, I believe the number is much higher)

(04-19-2016 09:06 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 08:17 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 03:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Your statement is essentially true Tom, but you're ignoring that we spent TRILLIONS of borrowed dollars specifically to create those jobs... and as you note, the economy would have re-created the vast majority of them anyway... implying that contrary to what we were told, we threw a TON of money down a 'special interest' hole.

There are policies, and then there is spending. SOMETIMES they are the same thing, and sometimes they are not.

That's what got me the most about how the "stimulus" was spent...

When you get a windfall and decide to spend it you don't spend it on things who future annual cost will add to your future budget needs.

Bail out a school district hire 100 teachers and cops with your "stimulus" and then how do you pay for those 100 people next year? and the year after?

You essentially just burn money to buy favor.

We spent $862 billion... That's more than half of the money we needed to get all of our infrastructure into good repair (according to the American Association of Civil Engineers)..

$735 billion would have repaired every road, bridge, and public transit system in the country (According to AACE).

But nooooooooooo..... Gotta save those state Unions while they run up benefits that municipalities can't afford.

been telling you guys deflation is right around the corner unless Trump....

never underestimate the power of the Donald......

and the bolded is easily the most important aspect of your post (although, I believe the number is much higher)

Seemed low to me as well but it's what AACE said and they don't tend to lowball things. Maybe they were talking about replacing structures in need of repair.

(04-19-2016 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well, no president actually creates jobs, but if you can't see the actual job growth the past 7-8 years you're just being willfully dishonest.
And yes, I get it...many jobs are part-time...or what's also known as...a job.

So replacing one full time job with two part-time jobs is job growth?

(04-19-2016 04:09 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Thanks Obama! Meet my newest:



(This pistol is a blast)

Nice!


I can't justify spending that kind of money on another .22 when I have a perfectly good Ruger Mark II.

(04-19-2016 09:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 09:06 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 08:17 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 03:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Your statement is essentially true Tom, but you're ignoring that we spent TRILLIONS of borrowed dollars specifically to create those jobs... and as you note, the economy would have re-created the vast majority of them anyway... implying that contrary to what we were told, we threw a TON of money down a 'special interest' hole.

There are policies, and then there is spending. SOMETIMES they are the same thing, and sometimes they are not.

That's what got me the most about how the "stimulus" was spent...

When you get a windfall and decide to spend it you don't spend it on things who future annual cost will add to your future budget needs.

Bail out a school district hire 100 teachers and cops with your "stimulus" and then how do you pay for those 100 people next year? and the year after?

You essentially just burn money to buy favor.

We spent $862 billion... That's more than half of the money we needed to get all of our infrastructure into good repair (according to the American Association of Civil Engineers)..

$735 billion would have repaired every road, bridge, and public transit system in the country (According to AACE).

But nooooooooooo..... Gotta save those state Unions while they run up benefits that municipalities can't afford.

been telling you guys deflation is right around the corner unless Trump....

never underestimate the power of the Donald......

and the bolded is easily the most important aspect of your post (although, I believe the number is much higher)

Seemed low to me as well but it's what AACE said and they don't tend to lowball things. Maybe they were talking about replacing structures in need of repair.

there is no way that number is accurate when looking in totality...it's many trillions....I know what we are spending locally to fix thingys.....

any way one cuts it, the premise and misspending is accurate.....

(04-19-2016 03:44 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But you make it sound as if someone else would have done something different. All indications would have been that if Obama wasn't elected, McCain would have done the same thing.

That doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. McCain himself said he didn't know anything about the economy.

(04-19-2016 03:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Your statement is essentially true Tom, but you're ignoring that we spent TRILLIONS of borrowed dollars specifically to create those jobs... and as you note, the economy would have re-created the vast majority of them anyway... implying that contrary to what we were told, we threw a TON of money down a 'special interest' hole.

This is the point. For what we have spent, plus all the steps that the Fed has taken, we should be in a white-hot economy that is growing so fast as to be sending up its own alarms. We're not.

(04-19-2016 10:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-19-2016 03:38 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Your statement is essentially true Tom, but you're ignoring that we spent TRILLIONS of borrowed dollars specifically to create those jobs... and as you note, the economy would have re-created the vast majority of them anyway... implying that contrary to what we were told, we threw a TON of money down a 'special interest' hole.

This is the point. For what we have spent, plus all the steps that the Fed has taken, we should be in a white-hot economy that is growing so fast as to be sending up its own alarms. We're not.

XACLY! ....fire fk'n red/white hot...

and it wasn't just 862 billion. We continued to spend that much (and more) for the next few years. Only recently have we started to cut into that increase.

(04-19-2016 10:36 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  and it wasn't just 862 billion. We continued to spend that much (and more) for the next few years. Only recently have we started to cut into that increase.

I couldn't think of a worse strategic business plan....

damndest shite I've ever seen.....

hence, line 1b

The cash for clunkers was a disaster. A majority of really good condition used cars were just Destroyed thus driving the cost of any used car way up as a shortage existed after that dumb move. Also a large amount of cars bought to replace them were going to foreign manufactures . Another thing that happened was many dealerships that had Not contributed politically to the Democrats were forced out of business as the GM and Chrysler bailout money forced closures as a reduction of inventory across the country. in many cases DNC Donations were a slide rule in whom remained in the corporate loop and whom closed up or lost GM and Chrysler franchises .
http://nlpc.org/stories/2013/05/28/were-...p-closures

Classic Cronyism from Obama