Job Creators, the Wealthy and Republican slight of hand

[Sactowndog]

Okay I will concede Democrats aren't doing much to help jobs but Republicans aren't either despite their talk.

Job creators and the wealthy despite Republican mythology are not a 1 to 1 match. Many small business owners don't fall in the 1%. They are struggling to meet payroll and all their assets are tied into their business. A capital gains tax cut does them no good. They aren't helped to make payroll or modernize their shop with a capital gains tax cut.

On the other side many wealthy investors generate few jobs with their investments. For example, a hypothetical wealthy investor who invested 100% of his portfolio overseas would receive a significant tax cut without generating a single US job.

Even worse, consider a hypothetical hedge fund manager who wanted to purchase a US company with debt and then pay off that debt with increased cash flow generated by off-shoring the US based employees. For this wealthy investor, reducing the capital gains rate makes the deal easier to do and thus the strategy can be executed with more companies not less. So he is getting a tax break with the net effect being job loss.

The Republicans want you to believe their plan will help with job growth. Mitt will talk about how Obama hasn't delivered job growth. What they won't say is their plan is a cynical plan to help the 1% many of whom are hedge fund managers and won't do a darn thing to help middle class job growth in the US.

In fact, it will hurt it.

 

[Sactowndog]

Bump in case someone wants to debate something that will affect jobs instead of the other stuff.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Some idea's

-Cut waste within government
-Cut pointless regs
-Put money into the American economy through modernization(yes, I agree with the democrat talk), This is one of the reasons China is doing so good.
-Expand our tech sector and offer prizes for innovation.
-Do something BIG. Kennedy like, Rail road like, highway like, ect.


Put millions of people to work!

 

[Sactowndog]

Some idea's

-Cut waste within government
-Cut pointless regs
-Put money into the American economy through modernization(yes, I agree with the democrat talk), This is one of the reasons China is doing so good.
-Expand our tech sector and offer prizes for innovation.
-Do something BIG. Kennedy like, Rail road like, highway like, ect.


Put millions of people to work!

Cut waste in government. Yes

Cut pointless regs: yes, especially those that make getting business off the ground

Put money in: How? A Berkeley professor invented the next generation transiter that could reignite Silicon Valley. HP took the IP that California tax payers paid to develop and built the plant to produce it in Korea. As our conservative friends pointed out much of the Obama stimulus money ended up overseas. How do you keep investment local?

High tech: see above

Do something big: this is another area I think Obama is right. Most people spend all their money in four areas: food, energy, housing and healthcare. To truely jump start demand we need a paradigm shift that exponentially reforms and makes more efficient at least one of the areas. Energy and healthcare are clearly the two most inefficient of the 4. Obama is looking for a paradigm shift in two of them.

 

[SniperFire]

Okay I will concede Democrats aren't doing much to help jobs but Republicans aren't either despite their talk.

Job creators and the wealthy despite Republican mythology are not a 1 to 1 match. Many small business owners don't fall in the 1%. They are struggling to meet payroll and all their assets are tied into their business. A capital gains tax cut does them no good. They aren't helped to make payroll or modernize their shop with a capital gains tax cut.

On the other side many wealthy investors generate few jobs with their investments. For example, a hypothetical wealthy investor who invested 100% of his portfolio overseas would receive a significant tax cut without generating a single US job.

Even worse, consider a hypothetical hedge fund manager who wanted to purchase a US company with debt and then pay off that debt with increased cash flow generated by off-shoring the US based employees. For this wealthy investor, reducing the capital gains rate makes the deal easier to do and thus the strategy can be executed with more companies not less. So he is getting a tax break with the net effect being job loss.

The Republicans want you to believe their plan will help with job growth. Mitt will talk about how Obama hasn't delivered job growth. What they won't say is their plan is a cynical plan to help the 1% many of whom are hedge fund managers and won't do a darn thing to help middle class job growth in the US.

In fact, it will hurt it.

Their 'talk'?

Good gawd, man, nobody is talking about adding jobs until the clear and present danger of the Obama Regime is gone.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Some idea's

-Cut waste within government
-Cut pointless regs
-Put money into the American economy through modernization(yes, I agree with the democrat talk), This is one of the reasons China is doing so good.
-Expand our tech sector and offer prizes for innovation.
-Do something BIG. Kennedy like, Rail road like, highway like, ect.


Put millions of people to work!

Cut waste in government. Yes

Cut pointless regs: yes, especially those that make getting business off the ground

Put money in: How? A Berkeley professor invented the next generation transiter that could reignite Silicon Valley. HP took the IP that California tax payers paid to develop and built the plant to produce it in Korea. As our conservative friends pointed out much of the Obama stimulus money ended up overseas. How do you keep investment local?

High tech: see above

Do something big: this is another area I think Obama is right. Most people spend all their money in four areas: food, energy, housing and healthcare. To truely jump start demand we need a paradigm shift that exponentially reforms and makes more efficient at least one of the areas. Energy and healthcare are clearly the two most inefficient of the 4. Obama is looking for a paradigm shift in two of them.

Obama is wrong to centralize the health care industry. This doesn't work as it isn't efficient. This isn't a simple fix as history has shown us that allowing private industry to do the world=more better normally.

Sadly, the private industry isn't always fair. Kind of a tricky one we got here.

I agree with some of what Obama is doing within energy, but do feel he needs to focus more on nuclear, natural gas, ect. As Wind and solar aren't going to be number one as energy providers for our nation until we can figure out the storage problem.

Maybe he should focus on modernizing the energy infrastructure to be more energy efficient. This could cut down on energy waste.

I strongly agree with him with private space travel...But I believe that nasa needs to lead the way back to the moon. This would get our children dreaming of becoming scientists and engineers.

You even the playing field with the rest of the world to keep things in our country. Cut the corperate tax.

 

[Liberal]

FOCUS on small businesses, not big businesses or "business". Do whatever is necessary to help get them back on their feet, and I do mean "whatever".

They are often overlooked by both parties, IMHO.

 

[dblack]

It is not the responsibility of government, nor should it be within its power, to provide us with jobs.

 

[Moonglow]

Some idea's

-Cut waste within government
-Cut pointless regs
-Put money into the American economy through modernization(yes, I agree with the democrat talk), This is one of the reasons China is doing so good.
-Expand our tech sector and offer prizes for innovation.
-Do something BIG. Kennedy like, Rail road like, highway like, ect.


Put millions of people to work!

Cut waste in government. Yes

Cut pointless regs: yes, especially those that make getting business off the ground

Put money in: How? A Berkeley professor invented the next generation transiter that could reignite Silicon Valley. HP took the IP that California tax payers paid to develop and built the plant to produce it in Korea. As our conservative friends pointed out much of the Obama stimulus money ended up overseas. How do you keep investment local?

High tech: see above

Do something big: this is another area I think Obama is right. Most people spend all their money in four areas: food, energy, housing and healthcare. To truely jump start demand we need a paradigm shift that exponentially reforms and makes more efficient at least one of the areas. Energy and healthcare are clearly the two most inefficient of the 4. Obama is looking for a paradigm shift in two of them.

Obama is wrong to centralize the health care industry. This doesn't work as it isn't efficient. This isn't a simple fix as history has shown us that allowing private industry to do the world=more better normally.

Sadly, the private industry isn't always fair. Kind of a tricky one we got here.

I agree with some of what Obama is doing within energy, but do feel he needs to focus more on nuclear, natural gas, ect. As Wind and solar aren't going to be number one as energy providers for our nation until we can figure out the storage problem.

Maybe he should focus on modernizing the energy infrastructure to be more energy efficient. This could cut down on energy waste.

I strongly agree with him with private space travel...But I believe that nasa needs to lead the way back to the moon. This would get our children dreaming of becoming scientists and engineers.

You even the playing field with the rest of the world to keep things in our country. Cut the corperate tax.

Deep space exploration is where NASA is going, we have already been to the moon. I think the idea of an international space station after this one burns up in a few years, is what NASA has planned, i believe they are tossing up the idea of a movable space station, or a land based one. they do plane on introducing the new launch vehicle which will lift of the deep space explorers next year. I look forward to it.

 

[occupied]

There is no way to get back to 2008, no way on earth. If that is the benchmark many are using as a sign of recovery then we will never recover. Too much equity gone forever, too many jobs gone overseas never to return, too many credit ratings ruined, too many people scared to death to take on more debt. The 1% would like us to believe that more tax cuts, more deregulation, more ass-kissing, more republicans in office, will get us back to 2008 before it all came crashing down, do not believe their lies, it will take decades to build back what has been squandered if it is even possible at all.

 

[Moonglow]

FOCUS on small businesses, not big businesses or "business". Do whatever is necessary to help get them back on their feet, and I do mean "whatever".

They are often overlooked by both parties, IMHO.

The essential need for small business is local demand. in our area things are looking very good. We have 6% unemployment and it is dropping. I do wish land prices woould rise for my 43 acre investment, but at the same time those with cash and or credit have a great buyers market that only comes around every 30-40 years.Labor cost is lower but material prices are high, that is because of megacorps holding them high becuase they have a majority share of the market.
The insurance regs have finally caught up to us, and the contractor fees, but in missouri you need no license for the state on\ly the towns you plan to work in.
The small businesses need consumers to spend and they are around here in SW Mizzouri, NW Arkansas and NE Okiehoma.

 

[Moonglow]

There is no way to get back to 2008, no way on earth. If that is the benchmark many are using as a sign of recovery then we will never recover. Too much equity gone forever, too many jobs gone overseas never to return, too many credit ratings ruined, too many people scared to death to take on more debt. The 1% would like us to believe that more tax cuts, more deregulation, more ass-kissing, more republicans in office, will get us back to 2008 before it all came crashing down, do not believe their lies, it will take decades to build back what has been squandered if it is even possible at all.

I learned during Reagan and Bush not to take on too much credit period, and try to work with a cash basis for operation. Many builders will work with you on it.

 

[occupied]

There is no way to get back to 2008, no way on earth. If that is the benchmark many are using as a sign of recovery then we will never recover. Too much equity gone forever, too many jobs gone overseas never to return, too many credit ratings ruined, too many people scared to death to take on more debt. The 1% would like us to believe that more tax cuts, more deregulation, more ass-kissing, more republicans in office, will get us back to 2008 before it all came crashing down, do not believe their lies, it will take decades to build back what has been squandered if it is even possible at all.

I learned during Reagan and Bush not to take on too much credit period, and try to work with a cash basis for operation. Many builders will work with you on it.

America ran on expansion of consumer credit rather than wages for years, I have no idea what anyone can do about that particular collapse especially since wages are on a downturn along with borrowing.

 

[Sactowndog]

Some idea's

-Cut waste within government
-Cut pointless regs
-Put money into the American economy through modernization(yes, I agree with the democrat talk), This is one of the reasons China is doing so good.
-Expand our tech sector and offer prizes for innovation.
-Do something BIG. Kennedy like, Rail road like, highway like, ect.


Put millions of people to work!

Cut waste in government. Yes

Cut pointless regs: yes, especially those that make getting business off the ground

Put money in: How? A Berkeley professor invented the next generation transiter that could reignite Silicon Valley. HP took the IP that California tax payers paid to develop and built the plant to produce it in Korea. As our conservative friends pointed out much of the Obama stimulus money ended up overseas. How do you keep investment local?

High tech: see above

Do something big: this is another area I think Obama is right. Most people spend all their money in four areas: food, energy, housing and healthcare. To truely jump start demand we need a paradigm shift that exponentially reforms and makes more efficient at least one of the areas. Energy and healthcare are clearly the two most inefficient of the 4. Obama is looking for a paradigm shift in two of them.

You even the playing field with the rest of the world to keep things in our country. Cut the corperate tax.

I agree completely with this. In fact, I would like to eliminate corporate income taxes entirely. That takes away the argument of double taxation with dividends and capital gains.

 

[Sactowndog]

Some idea's

-Cut waste within government
-Cut pointless regs
-Put money into the American economy through modernization(yes, I agree with the democrat talk), This is one of the reasons China is doing so good.
-Expand our tech sector and offer prizes for innovation.
-Do something BIG. Kennedy like, Rail road like, highway like, ect.


Put millions of people to work!

Cut waste in government. YesU

Cut pointless regs: yes, especially those that make getting business off the ground

Put money in: How? A Berkeley professor invented the next generation transiter that could reignite Silicon Valley. HP took the IP that California tax payers paid to develop and built the plant to produce it in Korea. As our conservative friends pointed out much of the Obama stimulus money ended up overseas. How do you keep investment local?

High tech: see above

Do something big: this is another area I think Obama is right. Most people spend all their money in four areas: food, energy, housing and healthcare. To truely jump start demand we need a paradigm shift that exponentially reforms and makes more efficient at least one of the areas. Energy and healthcare are clearly the two most inefficient of the 4. Obama is looking for a paradigm shift in two of them.

Obama is wrong to centralize the health care industry. This doesn't work as it isn't efficient. This isn't a simple fix as history has shown us that allowing private industry to do the world=more better normally.

Sadly, the private industry isn't always fair. Kind of a tricky one we got here.

Okay I disagree here and here are my reasons. The US spends per capita 1.8 the next closest nation on healthcare. We are extremely inefficient.

Part of the reason is we rely heavily on "market" based healthcare when economic theory would prove this approach to be problematic. A demand curve is created by the phenomenon called marginal utility. Marginal utility demands that as the price rises by a dollar a percent of the market will choose to drop out. This works for restaurants but people don't drop out of healthcare. They wait until the problem is acute and expensive to treat then they go to the hospital where we mandate the hospital treat them. If we were willing to let people drop out of the market our model would work but we are not willing.

We have to chose. A market model means hospitals are not mandated to treat emergencies and people will die of curable diseases because they can't afford it. Vet medicine works this way today. Alternatively we need a modified system that acknowledges we aren't going to let people drop out and directs them to more appropriate ways of treating at government expense.

Our unwillingness to choose is why we have the most inefficient healthcare system in the world.

 

[Sactowndog]

FOCUS on small businesses, not big businesses or "business". Do whatever is necessary to help get them back on their feet, and I do mean "whatever".

They are often overlooked by both parties, IMHO.

The essential need for small business is local demand. in our area things are looking very good. We have 6% unemployment and it is dropping. I do wish land prices woould rise for my 43 acre investment, but at the same time those with cash and or credit have a great buyers market that only comes around every 30-40 years.Labor cost is lower but material prices are high, that is because of megacorps holding them high becuase they have a majority share of the market.
The insurance regs have finally caught up to us, and the contractor fees, but in missouri you need no license for the state on\ly the towns you plan to work in.
The small businesses need consumers to spend and they are around here in SW Mizzouri, NW Arkansas and NE Okiehoma.

I agree so how do you stimulate local demand.

1) lower corporate income taxes and business regs so businesses can be profitable at a lower cost point. (you have to raise taxes elsewhere to cover a significant drop)

2) create a paradigm shift in one of the main areas that consumes all of the budget for 70% of the population: housing, food, medical, energy. If they have a sudden shift in one of these areas that dramatically reduces costs that money can be spent on discretionary items increasing demand.

 

[Sactowndog]

Some idea's

-Cut waste within government
-Cut pointless regs
-Put money into the American economy through modernization(yes, I agree with the democrat talk), This is one of the reasons China is doing so good.
-Expand our tech sector and offer prizes for innovation.
-Do something BIG. Kennedy like, Rail road like, highway like, ect.


Put millions of people to work!

Cut waste in government. Yes

Cut pointless regs: yes, especially those that make getting business off the ground

Put money in: How? A Berkeley professor invented the next generation transiter that could reignite Silicon Valley. HP took the IP that California tax payers paid to develop and built the plant to produce it in Korea. As our conservative friends pointed out much of the Obama stimulus money ended up overseas. How do you keep investment local?

High tech: see above

Do something big: this is another area I think Obama is right. Most people spend all their money in four areas: food, energy, housing and healthcare. To truely jump start demand we need a paradigm shift that exponentially reforms and makes more efficient at least one of the areas. Energy and healthcare are clearly the two most inefficient of the 4. Obama is looking for a paradigm shift in two of them.

Obama is wrong to centralize the health care industry. This doesn't work as it isn't efficient. This isn't a simple fix as history has shown us that allowing private industry to do the world=more better normally.

Sadly, the private industry isn't always fair. Kind of a tricky one we got here.

One other thought..... Not only do we not have a market based healthcare market because we don't allow opt out on the demand side but the supply side is messed up also.

You can go to Canada and buy pampers for your child but you can't buy Medicine and bring it legally back into the states. If you truely had open markets this would be allowed.

So the biggest lie in politics is we have a market based health care system. We don't. We have a poorly structured government mandated system that is so poorly structured we have the highest per capita costs by almost 2x in the world.

 

[dblack]

So the biggest lie in politics is we have a market based health care system. We don't. We have a poorly structured government mandated system that is so poorly structured we have the highest per capita costs by almost 2x in the world.

This is the general tension behind so many of our public dysfunctions. I think a lot of people are of the opinion that a "middle ground" is some kind of reasonable compromise, when often it's the worst of both worlds. This is especially the case in economic matters. We can't enjoy the benefits of a free market if it the government is meddling in it with ulterior motives. Likewise, mixing the coercive power of the state with corporate greed is a corrupt disaster.

 

[Sactowndog]

So the biggest lie in politics is we have a market based health care system. We don't. We have a poorly structured government mandated system that is so poorly structured we have the highest per capita costs by almost 2x in the world.

This is the general tension behind so many of our public dysfunctions. I think a lot of people are of the opinion that a "middle ground" is some kind of reasonable compromise, when often it's the worst of both worlds. This is especially the case in economic matters. We can't enjoy the benefits of a free market if it the government is meddling in it with ulterior motives. Likewise, mixing the coercive power of the state with corporate greed is a corrupt disaster.

Well in this case, the ulterior motive is we are unwilling to let people drop out of the market and die on the street from things that could be fixed. I see this phenomenon every day in my wife's vet practice where the delivery of medicine is much more efficient.

So what's your solution? Mine is a single payer system for all like Ryan's Voucher system and allow health plans to be marketed nationally. The government would have a default plan for those to lazy or stupid to sign up for one on their own.

I would guess you should have some disclosure requirements and financial requirements to prevent swindlers from just taking people's money.

 

[dblack]

Well in this case, the ulterior motive is we are unwilling to let people drop out of the market and die on the street from things that could be fixed.

Well, as I and others have pointed, it's not a choice between "letting people die in the streets" and government intervention. I don't think it's useful to frame it as a black and white choice in that regard.

So what's your solution? Mine is a single payer system for all like Ryan's Voucher system and allow health plans to be marketed nationally. The government would have a default plan for those to lazy or stupid to sign up for one on their own.

I would guess you should have some disclosure requirements and financial requirements to prevent swindlers from just taking people's money.

My preferred solution is non-governmental and free market - because I prefer freedom. If we don't have the political will to maintain that, then we should resolve to provide health care as a government service in a sane way. Something like what we've done with primary education makes the most sense to me (only the basics, localized as possible, etc ...).

What you're recommending, in my view, is exactly the muddled middle ground I was complaining about in my post. To me it's the worst of both worlds and, to keep it from becoming an utterly corrupted mess, would require far more loss of freedom than simply making health care another government service.