Economic Treason?

[boedicca]

What are they investing in to create jobs? If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

They are sitting on cash due to uncertainty. Making Higher Taxes Certain will drive that capital overseas.

Corporate profits rose 29% in 2010, the fastest growth in 50 years. You mean with those kinds of numbers they're still whining that their fat-cat deal on corporate tax writeoffs might go away? Ironically, if American businesses expanded IN AMERICA thereby creating jobs, those greedy bastards might just realize that their profits would rise exponentially.

Call a Waaammmmbulance.

It's clear you think that punishing producers will solve the budget crisis. It won't.

Capital is on strike. Increasing taxes will just make it worse.

 

[MaggieMae]

b-b-b-b--but....>

But there’s a third reason for Washington’s inaction. It’s not being talked about — which is itself evidence of the problem.

The unemployed are politically invisible. They don’t make major campaign donations. They don’t lobby Congress. There’s no National Association of Unemployed People.
Their ranks are filled with women who had been public employees, single mothers, minorities, young people trying to enter the labor force, and middle-aged men who have been out of work for longer than six months. You couldn’t find a collection of people with less political clout

Robert Reich (Why Washington Isn't Doing Squat About Jobs and Wages)

Your lack of historical knowledge is telling.

Only FDR was able to get re-elected with UE over 7%.

And Obama lacks too much to walk in his shoes and there's is far to much media coverage to cover his lack of skills.

The political irony is that the same economic mess would have occurred if Obama had not become President, and you'll have the same economic mess to deal with if he's replaced. Same with FDR's 12 years in office. His "stimulus" was called the "New Deal" which injected massive amounts of federal money into the private sector in order to climb out of the depression. And people understood then that it would take as many years to get the economy humming again.

 

[boedicca]

If Obama had not become President, we wouldn't have had the $800B Porkulus and vast increase of the regulatory bureaucracy. Nor would TARP money have been illegally funneled into auto companies.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Oh goody. Let's punish investment capital so that we can create even less jobs.

What are they investing in to create jobs? If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

due to our minimum wage and very high union wages, along with a vast array of regualations that add to the cost of getting started and keeping it going.

It's way more effective to open up overseas or south of the boarder.

We are "being nice" our way out of competition.

 

[boedicca]

ObamaCare has also put a huge chill on job creation. Employers have no idea what the costs will be. With that type of uncertainty, they put things on hold.

 

[Two Thumbs]

b-b-b-b--but....>

But there’s a third reason for Washington’s inaction. It’s not being talked about — which is itself evidence of the problem.

The unemployed are politically invisible. They don’t make major campaign donations. They don’t lobby Congress. There’s no National Association of Unemployed People.
Their ranks are filled with women who had been public employees, single mothers, minorities, young people trying to enter the labor force, and middle-aged men who have been out of work for longer than six months. You couldn’t find a collection of people with less political clout

Robert Reich (Why Washington Isn't Doing Squat About Jobs and Wages)

Your lack of historical knowledge is telling.

Only FDR was able to get re-elected with UE over 7%.

And Obama lacks too much to walk in his shoes and there's is far to much media coverage to cover his lack of skills.

The political irony is that the same economic mess would have occurred if Obama had not become President, and you'll have the same economic mess to deal with if he's replaced. Same with FDR's 12 years in office. His "stimulus" was called the "New Deal" which injected massive amounts of federal money into the private sector in order to climb out of the depression. And people understood then that it would take as many years to get the economy humming again.

FDR's plan was an epic failure.

While even the Germans were pulling out of the Depression, FDR's plan kept us in it. The saving grace was he got us involved in WW2.

If it hadn't come along, history would record him as the failed tyrant he was.

And a differernt person would have done things differently.

 

[MaggieMae]

If Obama had not become President, we wouldn't have had the $800B Porkulus and vast increase of the regulatory bureaucracy. Nor would TARP money have been illegally funneled into auto companies.

So what would McCain have done? On the eve of the first bank to go bellyup, two months before the election, he thought the economy was hunky dory. As for Bush, he had his own auto bailout, as well as his team taking the lead in developing TARP.

Bush announces $17.4 billion auto bailout - David Rogers and Mike Allen - POLITICO.com

Auto bailout in the balance: Was it worth it? - The Washington Post

But for Mr. Obama’s decision to give GM and Chrysler money in exchange for restructuring, the two firms and many related businesses would have gone under, destroying jobs and communities across the heartland. Today, by contrast, GM and Chrysler are profitable and hiring again — as are Ford (which didn’t get aid), the international carmakers and their U.S.-based suppliers. And it’s all costing taxpayers less than originally estimated.

^Ford didn't take any TARP money because months just prior to the meltdown, Ford had already taken out huge loans to cover anticipated debts.

And btw, the average wage a UAW employee earns today is $14.00 per hour, not the $27.00 per hour of just a few years ago.

 

[MaggieMae]

Oh goody. Let's punish investment capital so that we can create even less jobs.

What are they investing in to create jobs? If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

due to our minimum wage and very high union wages, along with a vast array of regualations that add to the cost of getting started and keeping it going.

It's way more effective to open up overseas or south of the boarder.

We are "being nice" our way out of competition.

Unions now represent only 12% of the work force. Minimum wage is now at $7.45. You try even living on that.

 

[MaggieMae]

ObamaCare has also put a huge chill on job creation. Employers have no idea what the costs will be. With that type of uncertainty, they put things on hold.

There are any number of sites where businesses can figure out what their health costs will be that have been available for over a year. If they still can't figure it out, perhaps they shouldn't be in business. It's also not that difficult to just pick up the phone and call a tax accountant. Employee health insurance, by the way, has always been subsidized with the employer able to write off those costs.

 

[Two Thumbs]

What are they investing in to create jobs? If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

due to our minimum wage and very high union wages, along with a vast array of regualations that add to the cost of getting started and keeping it going.

It's way more effective to open up overseas or south of the boarder.

We are "being nice" our way out of competition.

Unions now represent only 12% of the work force. Minimum wage is now at $7.45. You try even living on that.

Increase it to $50 and you still won't be able to get by.

That's 12% of total jobs. What's thier cut of production?

 

[MaggieMae]

Your lack of historical knowledge is telling.

Only FDR was able to get re-elected with UE over 7%.

And Obama lacks too much to walk in his shoes and there's is far to much media coverage to cover his lack of skills.

The political irony is that the same economic mess would have occurred if Obama had not become President, and you'll have the same economic mess to deal with if he's replaced. Same with FDR's 12 years in office. His "stimulus" was called the "New Deal" which injected massive amounts of federal money into the private sector in order to climb out of the depression. And people understood then that it would take as many years to get the economy humming again.

FDR's plan was an epic failure.

While even the Germans were pulling out of the Depression, FDR's plan kept us in it. The saving grace was he got us involved in WW2.

If it hadn't come along, history would record him as the failed tyrant he was.

And a differernt person would have done things differently.

You need to revisit American History 101 and read what led up to the depression and what was sure to happen without the New Deal, then study Economics 101.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The political irony is that the same economic mess would have occurred if Obama had not become President, and you'll have the same economic mess to deal with if he's replaced. Same with FDR's 12 years in office. His "stimulus" was called the "New Deal" which injected massive amounts of federal money into the private sector in order to climb out of the depression. And people understood then that it would take as many years to get the economy humming again.

FDR's plan was an epic failure.

While even the Germans were pulling out of the Depression, FDR's plan kept us in it. The saving grace was he got us involved in WW2.

If it hadn't come along, history would record him as the failed tyrant he was.

And a differernt person would have done things differently.

You need to revisit American History 101 and read what led up to the depression and what was sure to happen without the New Deal, then study Economics 101.

Did you know about the 1920's deression?

There was no government aid involved so it lasted a single year

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Hey!!!

We have had the same economic policies for over 30 years!!!
It isn't "Republicans or Democrats...it is politicians and their unwillingness to do what is right.

F*ck a duck!! People...sh*t...while we sit around and argue whose fault it is - our country is crumbling around us while we point fingers.

WAKE UP

 

[MaggieMae]

FDR's plan was an epic failure.

While even the Germans were pulling out of the Depression, FDR's plan kept us in it. The saving grace was he got us involved in WW2.

If it hadn't come along, history would record him as the failed tyrant he was.

And a differernt person would have done things differently.

You need to revisit American History 101 and read what led up to the depression and what was sure to happen without the New Deal, then study Economics 101.

Did you know about the 1920's deression?

There was no government aid involved so it lasted a single year

There's more to it than that. The country was still an industrial goldmine for the wealthy businessmen who had retooled their factories in order to churn out war material and now wanted to get back to business. The private sector worked in concert with the public sector in order to make that happen, through training, retraining, and just down and dirty hard work. As later in the decade the economy began to pull itself back together, it also created a boom, with over-spending and overreaching, and eventually all that came crashing down. Sound familiar?

Causes Of The Great Depression | Great Depression Causes | The Great Depression

False Sense Of Prosperity Before The Great Depression
The 1920s, known as “The Roaring Twenties” marked a time when America was overdependent on production, automobiles were the leading industry, and there was a great disparity between rich and poor. More than 60% of the population was living below poverty levels, while a mere 5% of the wealthiest people in America accounted for 33% of the income, and the richest 1% owned 40% of the nation’s wealth. This uneven distribution of wealth was mirrored in the unequal distribution of riches between industry and agriculture.

Global Crisis And The Great Depression
While America prospered during the 1920s, most of Europe, still reeling from the devastation of World War I, fell into economic decline. America soon became the world’s banker, and as Europe started defaulting on loans and buying less American products, the Great Depression spread.

Speculation And Overleverage In The Great Depression
With only loose stock market regulations in place before the Great Depression, investors were able speculate wildly, buying stocks on margin, needing only 10% of the price of a stock to be able to complete the purchase. Rampant speculation led to falsely high stock prices, and when the stock market began to tumble in the months leading up to the October 1929 crash, speculative investors couldn’t make their margin calls, and a massive sell-off began. While the great rise in the stock market (from 181 points in early 1928 to 381 points in September 1929) was fueled by optimism and false hope, the plunge was flamed by stark fear.

And then came the Great Depression as a result. Suddenly even the rich realized they had no real money.

 

[sparky]

Some of you are spot on ignoring the partisan part of 'it's the economy stupid'. The only real dif bettween the two parties is which falls to it's knees quickest or publicly in front of it's $$$ masters

as to the historical aspects, we can't discount the past (lest we relive it) , so all the machinations of the powers that be , as well as public gestalt apply, because human nature has, and will not change in the new millenieum

that said, we've crossed the rubicon of late here, our legislators knowing full well that any given societies economic well being is always in flux with the past, are actively looking beyong the usual blame game to tank it 'out of power' because they know we're stupid enough to buy into the notion that every economic disease is created and/or mitigated within ONE potus term

we're being played folks....

~S~

 

[MaggieMae]

Some of you are spot on ignoring the partisan part of 'it's the economy stupid'. The only real dif bettween the two parties is which falls to it's knees quickest or publicly in front of it's $$$ masters

as to the historical aspects, we can't discount the past (lest we relive it) , so all the machinations of the powers that be , as well as public gestalt apply, because human nature has, and will not change in the new millenieum

that said, we've crossed the rubicon of late here, our legislators knowing full well that any given societies economic well being is always in flux with the past, are actively looking beyong the usual blame game to tank it 'out of power' because they know we're stupid enough to buy into the notion that every economic disease is created and/or mitigated within ONE potus term

we're being played folks....

~S~

Oh I think a lot of us recognize that believing soundbite solutions should be taken with a grain of salt because the words alone are completely ineffective. The only way to end politicizing the economy is to outlaw the $$$ masters (the lobbyists). But that can't be done because of that pesky first amendment thing.