Finally the Republican plan for jobs - Revealed.

[Sallow]

Well it's not a real big surprise..been sayin this for quite some time. But it's a good deal more formalized now:
A. Fire all the educated public workers.
B. They will flood the job market.
C. Wages will go down.
D. Companies will hire people for lower wages.

Simple..right?

Krugman has a piece on it:

The Mellon Doctrine
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 31, 2011

“Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.” That, according to Herbert Hoover, was the advice he received from Andrew Mellon, the Treasury secretary, as America plunged into depression. To be fair, there’s some question about whether Mellon actually said that; all we have is Hoover’s version, written many years later.

But one thing is clear: Mellon-style liquidationism is now the official doctrine of the G.O.P.

Two weeks ago, Republican staff at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report, “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,” that argued that slashing government spending and employment in the face of a deeply depressed economy would actually create jobs. In part, they invoked the aid of the confidence fairy; more on that in a minute. But the leading argument was pure Mellon.

Here’s the report’s explanation of how layoffs would create jobs: “A smaller government work force increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.” Dropping the euphemisms, what this says is that by increasing unemployment, particularly of “educated, skilled workers” — in case you’re wondering, that mainly means schoolteachers — we can drive down wages, which would encourage hiring.

<snip>
A year ago, conservatives gleefully trumpeted statistical studies supposedly showing many successful examples of expansionary austerity. Since then, however, those studies have been more or less thoroughly debunked by careful researchers, notably at the International Monetary Fund.

To their credit, the staffers who wrote that G.O.P. report were clearly aware that the evidence no longer supports their position. To their discredit, their response was to make the same old arguments, while adding weasel words to cover themselves: instead of asserting outright that spending cuts are expansionary, the report says that confidence effects of austerity “can boost G.D.P. growth.” Can under what circumstances? Boost relative to what? It doesn’t say.

Did I mention that in Britain, where the government that took power last May bought completely into the doctrine of expansionary austerity, the economy has stalled and business confidence has fallen to a two-year low? And even the government’s new, more pessimistic projections are based on the assumption that highly indebted British households will take on even more debt in the years ahead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&hp

 

[Trajan]

do you have a link to the plan, sorry but your hyperbole doesn't cut it, can we see the rep. plan , not just your side of it ( well actually there is no side but anyway) ? and krugman? why yes, of course.

 

[xsited1]

Krugman???

 

[Sallow]

do you have a link to the plan, sorry but your hyperbole doesn't cut it, can we see the rep. plan , not just your side of it ( well actually there is no side but anyway) ? and krugman? why yes, of course.

Some time ago we got into about the HP/Compaq deal in which you asked for a link about the desire to add TANDEMS their the inventory. I provided it and you clammed up. Needless to say..I hate doing research that is not acknowledged.

House approves funding bill keeping government open until April 8 - The Washington Post

 

[Trajan]

do you have a link to the plan, sorry but your hyperbole doesn't cut it, can we see the rep. plan , not just your side of it ( well actually there is no side but anyway) ? and krugman? why yes, of course.

Some time ago we got into about the HP/Compaq deal in which you asked for a link about the desire to add TANDEMS their the inventory. I provided it and you clammed up. Needless to say..I hate doing research that is not acknowledged.

oh.....my...god......dude, that was like 7 months ago. for god sakes.

House approves funding bill keeping government open until April 8 - The Washington Post

hey, you the one with thread title-

Finally the Republican plan for jobs - Revealed.

one would think, you'd reveal it by at the very least posting a link to it?

 

[Sallow]

hey, you the one with thread title-

Finally the Republican plan for jobs - Revealed.

one would think, you'd reveal it by at the very least posting a link to it?

Well..it was sort of a sarcastic title. The plan should have been well known since the Reagan Presidency. And was picked up again by President George W. Bush when he changed overtime rules after one of his economic advisors said, "Americans make to much money". (No..I am not going to go look for that one..google works for everyone).

I had the term "Economic Equalibrium" in terms of compensation with the world..thrown around here..and in some articles. It basically means..that what Corporatists are hoping for is that highly skilled American labor accept third world salaries.

That really takes the cake.

 

[Dot Com]

Its the way Ayn would have wanted it

 

[Trajan]

I don't see a thing about a plan in there....

 

[Sallow]

I don't see a thing about a plan in there....

Um..

Here’s the report’s explanation of how layoffs would create jobs: “A smaller government work force increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.” Dropping the euphemisms, what this says is that by increasing unemployment, particularly of “educated, skilled workers” — in case you’re wondering, that mainly means schoolteachers — we can drive down wages, which would encourage hiring.

If you want to play the "Obtuse link game", fine.

But I for one, know you are smarter then that.

 

[Sallow]

Its the way Ayn would have wanted it

Up until she got sick and went on the Government dole..

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

 

[Trajan]

I don't see a thing about a plan in there....

Um..

Here&#8217;s the report&#8217;s explanation of how layoffs would create jobs: &#8220;A smaller government work force increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.&#8221; Dropping the euphemisms, what this says is that by increasing unemployment, particularly of &#8220;educated, skilled workers&#8221; &#8212; in case you&#8217;re wondering, that mainly means schoolteachers &#8212; we can drive down wages, which would encourage hiring.

If you want to play the "Obtuse link game", fine.

But I for one, know you are smarter then that.

no, thats not how it works I asked for the plan, so I can read it, you made the thread you are speaking to it, but? wheres the beef? I don't even know where that quote you made there comes from and its not up to me to search for links or information to back up YOUR debate.

But I for one, know you are smarter then that.

sorry, no sale.

 

[Dot Com]

I don't see a thing about a plan in there....

Um..

Here’s the report’s explanation of how layoffs would create jobs: “A smaller government work force increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.” Dropping the euphemisms, what this says is that by increasing unemployment, particularly of “educated, skilled workers” — in case you’re wondering, that mainly means schoolteachers — we can drive down wages, which would encourage hiring.

If you want to play the "Obtuse link game", fine.

But I for one, know you are smarter then that.

That Repub plan is sickening. First you got to live in the street then MAYBE a private firm will hire you? Riiight

 

[Sallow]

I don't see a thing about a plan in there....

Um..



If you want to play the "Obtuse link game", fine.

But I for one, know you are smarter then that.

no, thats not how it works I asked for the plan, so I can read it, you made the thread you are speaking to it, but? wheres the beef? I don't even know where that quote you made there comes from and its not up to me to search for links or information to back up YOUR debate.

But I for one, know you are smarter then that.

sorry, no sale.

Lets see.

1. Lower tax rates for the wealthy.
2. Change overtime rules so that companies can make employees "management" and stop paying overtime.
3. Put up legislation that allows companies to defer taxes on oversea profits.

By the time the measure — the American Jobs Creation Act — was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2004, it contained more than $13 billion a year in tax breaks for corporations, many very beneficial to G.E. One provision allowed companies to defer taxes on overseas profits from leasing planes to airlines. It was so generous — and so tailored to G.E. and a handful of other companies — that staff members on the House Ways and Means Committee publicly complained that G.E. would reap “an overwhelming percentage” of the estimated $100 million in annual tax savings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...ef=todayspaper

4. Weaken US worker protections by attacking Unions.
5. Point out the "urgency" of the deficit (which was caused by the tax cuts) and need to cut spending.
6. The spending cuts force layoffs of qualified highly skilled workers...creating a glut.
7. This lowers wages.

- Mission accomplished.

 

[Trajan]

Um..



If you want to play the "Obtuse link game", fine.

But I for one, know you are smarter then that.

no, thats not how it works I asked for the plan, so I can read it, you made the thread you are speaking to it, but? wheres the beef? I don't even know where that quote you made there comes from and its not up to me to search for links or information to back up YOUR debate.



sorry, no sale.

Lets see.

1. Lower tax rates for the wealthy.
2. Change overtime rules so that companies can make employees "management" and stop paying overtime.
3. Put up legislation that allows companies to defer taxes on oversea profits.

By the time the measure &#8212; the American Jobs Creation Act &#8212; was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2004, it contained more than $13 billion a year in tax breaks for corporations, many very beneficial to G.E. One provision allowed companies to defer taxes on overseas profits from leasing planes to airlines. It was so generous &#8212; and so tailored to G.E. and a handful of other companies &#8212; that staff members on the House Ways and Means Committee publicly complained that G.E. would reap &#8220;an overwhelming percentage&#8221; of the estimated $100 million in annual tax savings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/bu...ef=todayspaper

4. Weaken US worker protections by attacking Unions.
5. Point out the "urgency" of the deficit (which was caused by the tax cuts) and need to cut spending.
6. The spending cuts force layoffs of qualified highly skilled workers...creating a glut.
7. This lowers wages.

- Mission accomplished.

first you really have some nerve posting any attribution with GE in it....you know?

what does Bush have to do with this....2004?

second this is what I got when I attempted to access the pan so as to read the PLAN NOT the Times (?) interpretation of it..


Page Not Found

We're sorry, the page you've requested does not exist at this address. Please note:

# If you typed in the address, used a bookmark or followed a link from another Web site, the page is no longer available. Most articles remain online for seven days after publication. Articles back to 1851 are available through The New York Times Article Archive: 1851-Present.

# If you clicked on a headline or other link on NYTimes.com, you can report the missing page.

# E-mail subscribers: If you clicked on a link within a NYTimes.com e-mail newsletter, your e-mail program may not support the HTML version of the newsletter. Please try switching to the Text Version.

 

[Trajan]

I don't see a thing about a plan in there....

Um..

Here’s the report’s explanation of how layoffs would create jobs: “A smaller government work force increases the available supply of educated, skilled workers for private firms, thus lowering labor costs.” Dropping the euphemisms, what this says is that by increasing unemployment, particularly of “educated, skilled workers” — in case you’re wondering, that mainly means schoolteachers — we can drive down wages, which would encourage hiring.

If you want to play the "Obtuse link game", fine.

But I for one, know you are smarter then that.

That Repub plan is sickening. First you got to live in the street then MAYBE a private firm will hire you? Riiight

whoops, another hyperbole clean up on aisle 6...


yes, for god sakes we have to keep as many sate federal employees in the work force I mean what would they do? find a job?


my god the humanity..


Nobody trims personnel, nope never happens, not allowed you see, because unicorns will crap out dollars to pay for the jobs.....




hey , I got laid off in April of 2009....poooooor me......thems the breaks...there was no gov. apparatchik calling my manager and telling him hey that Trajan guy? don't lay him off, we'll foot the bill....

 

[edthecynic]

do you have a link to the plan, sorry but your hyperbole doesn't cut it, can we see the rep. plan , not just your side of it ( well actually there is no side but anyway) ? and krugman? why yes, of course.

http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/JEC_Jobs_Study.pdf

Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy
March 15, 2011

 

[Avatar4321]

It's really sad how few people understand self government, let alone live it.

 

[edthecynic]

no, thats not how it works I asked for the plan, so I can read it, you made the thread you are speaking to it, but? wheres the beef? I don't even know where that quote you made there comes from and its not up to me to search for links or information to back up YOUR debate.

But that's only because you were not only too lazy to google anything for yourself, but also too lazy to even read the OP!!

From the OP where it says exactly where the exact quote came from:

Republican staff at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report, “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,”

 

[Trajan]

no, thats not how it works I asked for the plan, so I can read it, you made the thread you are speaking to it, but? wheres the beef? I don't even know where that quote you made there comes from and its not up to me to search for links or information to back up YOUR debate.

But that's only because you were not only too lazy to google anything for yourself, but also too lazy to even read the OP!!

From the OP where it says exactly where the exact quote came from:

Republican staff at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report, “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,”

I already addressed that, so maybe you ought to read the whole thread or that is learn to comprehend what I have said.

 

[edthecynic]

no, thats not how it works I asked for the plan, so I can read it, you made the thread you are speaking to it, but? wheres the beef? I don't even know where that quote you made there comes from and its not up to me to search for links or information to back up YOUR debate.

But that's only because you were not only too lazy to google anything for yourself, but also too lazy to even read the OP!!

From the OP where it says exactly where the exact quote came from:

Republican staff at the Congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report, “Spend Less, Owe Less, Grow the Economy,”

I already addressed that, so maybe you ought to read the whole thread or that is learn to comprehend what I have said.

Talk about comprehension, I quoted and highlighted what you said, as well as provided the link to the report, in an earlier post, that you were too lazy to google and read before you attacked the commentary as questionable.