Obama's policies contributing to anemic private sector hiring

[Peevo]

We can argue till we're blue in the face about effective monetary policy, but under all this is a country with real people and real problems, struggling day to day to make ends meet for themselves and their kids.

 

Can't we all agree on that? People are in trouble here, and other parts of the country deeply affected by this mess. But no one seems to be offering solutions, or jobs. Is it all Obama's fault that major corporations are hoarding cash and not hiring people?

 

What I'm asking is, if there are any, pragmatic, altruistic solutions to these problems? Seriously. I'm not trying to be difficult or smarmy. What are the solutions? Do we cut ALL discretionary spending? That means no military, no roads/bridges or infrastructure spending, no help for kids my age with college spending. No nation building, or "war on terrorism," "war on drugs," etc.

 

How about mandatory spending? You really wanna piss off a MASSIVE elderly voting bloc and cut Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid? Good luck getting reelected on that platform.

 

What i think we need to do is cut spending and RAISE taxes. I'm struggling to pay my bills, so i got another job and cut out some bad habits that cost money. I cut spending and raised revenue. How do else do we fix this mess? Seriously.

[....lybob]

my opinion and some quotes I agree with

 

If two countries issue debt publicly and privately and one invests in technology, infrastructure, industry and education while the other spends on entitlements, military adventures, depreciables and zero-sum speculation, it is reasonable to expect the former will build wealth to repay the borrowed money while the latter will impoverish itself to repay the money over time. Both will increase employment levels regardless of how the money is spent, but that misses the point of the populist majority's constructive anger toward the government.

 

"Working people don't rise to the task because they have been propagandized into believing that "fiscal austerity" is something that needs to be done in order to save their children from an even worse fate. What actually needs to happen in a deflationary collapse is to spend more money into the system, not pull it back out by paying off the federal debt; but the money needs to go into the real economy - into factories, farms, businesses, housing, transportation, sustainable energy systems, health care, education. Instead, the stimulus money has been hijacked, diverted into cleaning up the toxic balance sheets of the financial gamblers who propelled the economy into its perilous dive."

- Ellen Brown

 

"Creating capital for business has to be less than 1pct of the volume on Wall Street in any given period. . . . My 2 cents is that it is important for this country to push Wall Street back to the business of creating capital for business. Whether it's through a use of taxes on trades, or changing the capital gains tax structure so that there is no capital gains tax on any shares of stock (private or public company) held for 5 years or more, and no tax on dividends paid to shareholders who have held stock in the company for more than 5 years. However we need to do it, we need to get the smart money on Wall Street back to thinking about ways to use their capital to help start and grow companies. That is what will create jobs. That is where we will find the next big thing that will accelerate the world economy. It won't come from traders trying to hack the financial system for a few pennies per trade." - Mark Cuban

[Dante]

I'd much rather trust our "business leaders" when it comes to hiring REAL people in the REAL world, who actually have experience in this field as opposed to Paul Krugman, an agenda filled partisan shill academic who has NO EXPERIENCE in hiring workers.

 

Let's see here. Do I listen to the most successful business leaders in the world, who have remained profitable in this tremendous downturn who knows what it takes to hire workers, or the academic that knows how to opine on the subject who's recommendations failed in the past and are failing today who also has a political agenda? hmmm thats a tough one.....

Can't help but think of Thornton Melon and the University Economics professor Dr Barbay exchange in the classroom on how to build a company.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9F5QL804qQ

[pBills]

I did, but it could be worse. The last guy commissioned a hurricane to kill black people.

 

 

That was outstanding.

[Rob's House]

We can argue till we're blue in the face about effective monetary policy, but under all this is a country with real people and real problems, struggling day to day to make ends meet for themselves and their kids.

 

Can't we all agree on that? People are in trouble here, and other parts of the country deeply affected by this mess. But no one seems to be offering solutions, or jobs. Is it all Obama's fault that major corporations are hoarding cash and not hiring people?

 

To gain understanding you must first let your prejudices go, and that includes prejudices against corportations, which are neither moral nor immoral as a race, but rather amoral. Corporations are trying to tread water long enough to stay in business through this downturn. Why would you hire people when business is slow?

 

What I'm asking is, if there are any, pragmatic, altruistic solutions to these problems? Seriously. I'm not trying to be difficult or smarmy. What are the solutions? Do we cut ALL discretionary spending? That means no military, no roads/bridges or infrastructure spending, no help for kids my age with college spending. No nation building, or "war on terrorism," "war on drugs," etc.

 

How about mandatory spending? You really wanna piss off a MASSIVE elderly voting bloc and cut Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid? Good luck getting reelected on that platform.

 

One of the most underrated solutions to economic problems is to do nothing. Free economies move in cycles. We have some modest controls that are used such as interest rate manipulation and the like, but ultimately in a free market economy private industry is what pulls society out of a recession. It's cyclical. The only times we have remained in a steady state of economic downturn is when the government decides to do something.

 

Now if you want to pass TARP, or do a modest "stimulus" to buffer the market correction (which is what a recession is) that may be desirable in some ways, but if you want recovery get government out of the damn way and let the system run it's course. If you have to do something, cut spending (that does not mean eliminate the military and roads, no offense, but don't be a putz), AND taxes.

 

 

What i think we need to do is cut spending and RAISE taxes. I'm struggling to pay my bills, so i got another job and cut out some bad habits that cost money. I cut spending and raised revenue. How do else do we fix this mess? Seriously.

 

I may break with my fellow supply siders in saying I don't think at this point you get a tremendous bump out of lowering taxes due to our position on the Laffer curve (I may be wrong on that, by the way), but the cut in deficit spending would stabilize the currency. Add to that a government that gives a clear and consistent message so business leaders have some idea what they can expect in the near future and you should see a turnaround sooner rather than later. Although with the dramatic infusion of currency into the system over the last two years you can still expect to see another correction in the next 2 yrs.

[DC Tom]

George W. Bush was "educated" at Yale. You'll have to forgive me for laughing at you and the ridiculousness of YOU telling someone else they have no clue.

 

It's the "N'Sync" defense. Popularity automatically means good. Nice work, simp.

 

I can't even mock him anymore. I can't do nearly as good a job of it as he does himself.

[IDBillzFan]

Add to that a government that gives a clear and consistent message so business leaders have some idea what they can expect in the near future and you should see a turnaround sooner rather than later. Although with the dramatic infusion of currency into the system over the last two years you can still expect to see another correction in the next 2 yrs.

It's amazing to me that no matter how loud the small business leaders yell, no one in DC will listen. They can do two things right now to get us back on at least SOME KIND of stable footing.

 

First, stop scaring the crap out of everyone by repeatedly trying to sell the ridiculous case that the government is responsible for creating jobs. The amount of waste and uselessness generated by the stimulus bill has been well documented. While it kept some people on payroll, it didn't do enough to make people want to keep spending. It was cash for clunkers on steroids; a costly band-aid that, at it's very best, only kept lima beans from tasting MORE like lima beans.

 

Second, stop scaring the crap out of everyone by repeatedly trying to sell the ridiculous case that not only can the government create jobs, but it can pay for it by taxing the very people who are responsible for most of the job creation in this country; small businesses.

 

This dolts drew a line in the sand at $250K, claiming that THESE are the rich people and THESE are the people who have extra cash to spread around on embarrassing stimulus jobs like studying grape genetics and building squirrel tunnels.

 

Small business owners are scared into submission because, to paraphrase a Buddy Guy song, they want to know "where is the next one coming from." The answer to all problems can not and should not be "increase taxes on those making $250K or more to pay for social programs." It's ridiculous. And embarrassing. And even Barbra Streisand can see it's freezing economic growth.

[/dev/null]

Actually, the overwhelming number of economists support free market ideals. The one's of which you speak tend to exist primarily in academia where there is no penalty for being consistently wrong.

 

Those who can, do

Those who can't, teach

[....lybob]

"WSJ

JULY 7, 2010, 11:03 AM ET

Goldman Sachs: We’re With Krugie!

 

 

By Matt Phillips

 

Elfin Timesman/Laureate/Pulitz-isto/Princetonian Paul Krugman has been banging the drum on the need for more stimulus pretty much since the effort to zap the economy back to life was first announced.

 

A well-coifed, dulcet-toned Harvard Scot named Niall Ferguson says that’s a bad idea and bond market vigilantes will show up in the dark of night and pummel U.S. bonds to applesauce, twist Uncle Sam’s arm around his back, and force him pay through his bleeding nose to borrow.

 

Anyhoo, the econowonks over at Goldman Sachs seem to be siding with the Krugster, suggesting that as the economy shows signs of softening, another jolt of stimulus seems to be in order. The bond markets know we’re good for it, they argue. Their proof? The low-low yields on U.S. debt. Goldman analysts wrote in a note dated July 5:

 

Our recently released Global Economics Paper No. 200 entitled “No Rush for the Exit” argues that policymakers should react to the combination of a sluggish recovery and declining inflation with additional policy easing, either via a return to unconventional monetary policy or via further fiscal stimulus. The obvious counterargument is that monetary and fiscal easing carries long-term costs in the form of, respectively, a risk of a renewed asset bubble and a higher public debt burden. But our study shows that these costs look far from prohibitive at present. On the monetary side, US financial markets are nowhere close to bubble territory. On the fiscal side, it is difficult to argue that the US government has reached the limits of its debt capacity when long-term bond yields are low and falling, and when federal interest payments stand at just 1½% of GDP. When compared with the risk of a renewed economic downturn and/or a descent into deflation, the cost of additional stimulus seems to be well worth paying."

 

 

 

Goldman Sachs and Paul Krugman agreeing? It's like those Superman Lex Luthor team ups, or Jehovah and Satan coming down arm in arm saying we decided to split the difference "you can screw anyone you want but you still go to hell for eating pork or lobster" "you can keep your foreskin but no more praying for threepeats" I'm going to have to reevaluate everything.

[GG]

This dolts drew a line in the sand at $250K, claiming that THESE are the rich people and THESE are the people who have extra cash to spread around on embarrassing stimulus jobs like studying grape genetics and building squirrel tunnels.

 

Actually, that line was never drawn because of the vagueness in whether $250 referred to AGI or Taxable Income. Big difference to people who pay attention and forecast budgets they must answer to.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Oh David, anyone who thinks rationally on this board knows that you're just an ignorant partisan gob swallower, right Mr. "Carter who ended inflation" . So, how does it taste Michelle?

 

Anyhoo, for those of us who were right in that these disastrous policies are deterring further private sector job growth. Here is what Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher said today:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh by the way, Phelan, Williams, Warsh, Greenspan and Fisher, you know the one's I quoted in this thread, aren't "business leaders" they are either policy makers or macro economists that compile data to the business community, so where's the skin in their game? YA Big Dummy!

Carter's policies with Paul Volker did bring down inflation. Take off the partisan glasses for once.

Reagan even kept Volker on.

 

What you posted was very select quotes from sevearl articles and didn't provide links, when I found the stories anyway it was clear why you had done that. You just want to fix the story your way, and hide little facts the article were actually pro-stimul;us, or that the Verizon CEO was actually saying that his plutocractic salary was going to be taxed at a higher rate and that that was "anti-business." He works hard for the millions ya know!

 

And if you are actually too stupid to think that "policy leaders" and microeconomists are above the partisan fray, you are obvioulsy too ignorant about how the world works to be taken seriously. Basically your are being fooled.

 

Corporate profits are great. Corporations were made to make profits and the world looks sweet to them right now. They are not made to produce jobs, and any CEO will tell you they want to get rid of jobs, not make more. I'm very dubious of the idea of the corporations riding to the rescue to save us.

[3rdnlng]

Carter's policies with Paul Volker did bring down inflation. Take off the partisan glasses for once.

Reagan even kept Volker on.

 

What you posted was very select quotes from sevearl articles and didn't provide links, when I found the stories anyway it was clear why you had done that. You just want to fix the story your way, and hide little facts the article were actually pro-stimul;us, or that the Verizon CEO was actually saying that his plutocractic salary was going to be taxed at a higher rate and that that was "anti-business." He works hard for the millions ya know!

 

And if you are actually too stupid to think that "policy leaders" and microeconomists are above the partisan fray, you are obvioulsy too ignorant about how the world works to be taken seriously. Basically your are being fooled.

 

Corporate profits are great. Corporations were made to make profits and the world looks sweet to them right now. They are not made to produce jobs, and any CEO will tell you they want to get rid of jobs, not make more. I'm very dubious of the idea of the corporations riding to the rescue to save us.

 

 

Corporations want to be efficient and grow their sales. They don't want to reduce jobs unless they are being inefficient. They actually want to grow their workforce if indeed it means more sales.

 

Dave, I don't think you really want to be calling Magox stupid or ignorant. In a one-on-one my money is on him.

[Rob's House]

Corporate profits are great. Corporations were made to make profits and the world looks sweet to them right now. They are not made to produce jobs, and any CEO will tell you they want to get rid of jobs, not make more. I'm very dubious of the idea of the corporations riding to the rescue to save us.

 

I keep seeing this bit about the CEOs wanting to get rid of jobs popping up lately. I'm not sure where this came from but it's either taken out of context or just pattently absurd.

 

Companies hire employees to make money, not provide jobs. More business requires more employees. If you have too many employees you're not operating at an optimum level and society, i.e. the customers, will pay the price of the largess. Most companies run around a 12% profit margin, give or take. They can't just go Santa Clause on everyone and they can't just start handing out high paying jobs for work that doesn't need to be done.

 

Economic growth comes from production, not consumption, and monetary destabilization prevents the economic cycle from perpetuating itself.

[GG]

Conner must be giddy that you're taking a run at his title.

[3rdnlng]

Conner must be giddy that you're taking a run at his title.

 

 

Naw, he's got to be the best at something.

[drnykterstein]

Actually, the overwhelming number of economists support free market ideals. The one's of which you speak tend to exist primarily in academia where there is no penalty for being consistently wrong.

NEWSFLASH: Liberals support free market ideals!!! Stop being ignorant.

[drnykterstein]

It's the "N'Sync" defense. Popularity automatically means good. Nice work, simp.

LAbills asked for a list. I only fulfilled his request.

[drnykterstein]

Conner must be giddy that you're taking a run at his title.

My title of what? Being the only non-retard to frequent this board? That is nothing to write home about.

[/dev/null]

My title of what? Being the only non-retard to frequent this board? That is nothing to write home about.

 

/dev/null pops some popcorn, opens an ice cold beer, grabs a lawn chair, and waits for Tom to start the fireworks

[GG]

My title of what? Being the only non-retard to frequent this board? That is nothing to write home about.

 

Trust me, there are many retards on this board. But few aspire for the crown.