NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
You're full of shit because you're lying about not hiring people now just because you think bad things might happen if Obama is re-elected.
Boehner: Job Creators are essentially on strike.
- Thread starter Sallow
- Start date
You're full of shit because you're lying about not hiring people now just because you think bad things might happen if Obama is re-elected.
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
You sound just like my boss. He wants to open another shop (which means 3 more full time jobs that pay mid 5-figures, plus benefits in the economy) but says he is too unsure of what the regulatory environment will be because the govt keeps talking about changing everything all the time.
R
rdean
Guest
That is such bullshit. Regulations haven't change hardly at all since Republicans deregulated Wall Street. If you're going to lie, at least make up good ones.
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
You OBVIOUSLY aren't from Massachussettes nor do you work for my boss.
RomneyCare + ObamaCare = Uncertanty of what compensation to offer due to uncertanty in benefits expenses.
MA Right To Repair act getting stalled out in our pro-corporate business democrat govt in MA
New EPA regulations just being tossed out without congressional approval that affect the automotive business.
Thats 3 items.....i have many more items of uncertanty that Obama and my State govt create for my boss.
Last edited:
BDBoop
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #106
Anybody can be a job creator, so it's bullshit that that's what we're calling the hoovering rich these days. They're not job creators. If they were, they would be. But they're not.
And if I decided cleaning wasn't for me anymore, I could hire someone to do it for me. O LOOK! I'm a job creator!
And if I decided cleaning wasn't for me anymore, I could hire someone to do it for me. O LOOK! I'm a job creator!
Jarhead
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2010
- 20,670
- 2,378
- 245
there are tens of thousands of small businesses in the country...hell..there are tens of thousands of small businesses in NYC alone.
THEY are the job creators we talk about...we are not talking about the "hoovering rich" as you refer them to..
We are talking about the small business owners like myself who employ 5-50 people and wind up with 200-300K a year in their pockets.
We are not "rich" enough to take a chance and hire right now...we have concerns about where the economy is going. A small increase in our cost to insure our employees concerns us...a small increase ion operating costs due to some new obscure regulation concerns us...the fact that there has been no economic growth despite al the rhetoric concerns us....the fact that we ALSO may be hit with an increase in personal income taxes concerns us...
So look at it this way.....if we are making 250K and we have been living within our means.....we have good reason to not want to spend an extra paenny right now...even if it means we may be able to make more money...nothing is guaranteed....so to take the chance right now would be foolish.
Dragon
Senior Member
- Sep 16, 2011
- 5,481
- 588
- 48
The job creators aren't on strike. They're unemployed.
Jobs are created when there is unsatisfied consumer demand for products and services, requiring more people to be hired to put those products and services on the market. Businesses aren't hiring for one reason and one reason only: because consumers aren't spending. And consumers aren't spending out of a combination of lack of money and lack of security.
Nothing that doesn't change that will result in the creation of new jobs, unless they are government jobs.
Jobs are created when there is unsatisfied consumer demand for products and services, requiring more people to be hired to put those products and services on the market. Businesses aren't hiring for one reason and one reason only: because consumers aren't spending. And consumers aren't spending out of a combination of lack of money and lack of security.
Nothing that doesn't change that will result in the creation of new jobs, unless they are government jobs.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
The claim that businesses aren't hiring people because they're afraid someday, who knows when, that the tax on some of their profits might be a couple few percentage points above where it is now is so ridiculous that it's simply astounding that anyone with a brain can say it with a straight face.
The truth is this, period.
1. Businesses are not hiring because they don't see enough demand for their goods and services.
2. Businesses are pretending that they're not hiring because of the government's policies because in times like these that makes for a believable story, as false as it is.
The truth is this, period.
1. Businesses are not hiring because they don't see enough demand for their goods and services.
2. Businesses are pretending that they're not hiring because of the government's policies because in times like these that makes for a believable story, as false as it is.
Kuros
Rookie
- Banned
- #110
Just what many of us suspected: right-wing rhetoric is a job-killer. The talking points are self-fulfilling prophecies. Except I can't help but think that economic malaise would continue even after a GOP victory; hell, the GOP won the House and everything is still Obama's fault.
Dr.House
Lives on in syndication!
Yes... 0bama: "The buck stops elsewhere"
Dot Com
Nullius in verba
All the U.S. does anymore, to a great extent, is service sector & financial services (legalized theft/funneling $ upwards)
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
If you can afford to hire a cleaner to clean for you then you are a lot richer than many americans including myself and you are creating a job....kinda ruined your own point with that example
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
BDBoop
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #115
If you can afford to hire a cleaner to clean for you then you are a lot richer than many americans including myself and you are creating a job....kinda ruined your own point with that example
No. I made my point. The rich are rich. They're only job creators if and when they actually do so. Until then, they're the rich.
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
If you can afford to hire a cleaner to clean for you then you are a lot richer than many americans including myself and you are creating a job....kinda ruined your own point with that example
No. I made my point. The rich are rich. They're only job creators if and when they actually do so. Until then, they're the rich.
Yeah the "rich" are rich regardless of if they are the rich people that create jobs or the rich people that earn a lot of money.
Still, if you can afford to hire a cleaning person that means you are more well off then most americans (also called rich) and it also means you created a job.
Dear Sallow, good chap, respectfully:
Ayn Rand made sense during the postwar years when capital was over-taxed and over-regulated.
Then came 30 years of the Reagan Revolution when taxes were reduced (from high 70% to mid 30%, with the effective rate being much lower: 15% for capital gains and 0% for many heavily subsidized companies; not to mention endless loopholes and offshore tricks). Moreover, the regulatory apparatus was completely captured by targeted lobbying dollars, such that regulations are now literally written by industry insiders. Don't take my word for it. Study the struggles Brooks Lee Bourne had in the Clinton administration trying to prevent Phil Graham from ending Glass-Stegall - this is the prototype of how the regulatory system has been captured by business. In fact, Reagan, Bush & Clinton (under the advice of Greenspan) believed that all regulatory positions should be filled by industry insiders.
Unlike the days of Ayn Rand, big business is sitting on more liquid than at any time in the past 50 years, and - as I said - they own the regulatory process, despite the current bluster over Obama coming after Wall Street (which is more for public consumption. Obama is not going to regulate his donors, he just needs to convince his idiot-base that he is on task).
So yes, Sallow dear boy: business has ample money to invest - in fact they have been in
crisis-mode for over a decade because they don't know where to put their surplus capital in order to realize the returns of yesteryear. It got so bad that Wall Street had to invent whole new derivative markets to satisfy the unprecedented demand created by neoliberalism, which - because of tax reductions on the very wealthy - created more cash than Wall Street could handle.
So a question arises my dear, dear Sallow: why didn't the Bush tax cuts go into the real economy? Why did so much of that money get burned in phantom, ponzi derivative schemes? (Indeed, a broader questions arises: what explains the immense financialization of the economy since the 70s, i.e., the flight from real economy investment to unproductive speculation, which seems not to lead to job creation but massive asset bubbles and wealth destruction. Why has the real economy been so under-invested?]
Answer: the real economy lacks consumers, which is why so much money is now routinely burned in speculative garbage. This is the real crisis of the neoliberal policies of Reagan/Bush/Clinton: there is no money trickling down to the poor consumers and the real economy (again: the aggregate collection of consumers no longer makes enough money to buy things), while the over-abundance of capital on top is grossly disproportionate to the investment opportunities, especially since there are not enough solvent consumers "down there" to sell things to. (This is what happens when you drive down wages to give capital more money to invest: you end up "firing" your consumers. This is why capitalism has been in crisis mode since the late 70s, when Reagan/Thatcher and the neoliberals took over. We are finally experiencing the long-term effect of those policies)
Meaning: this is the exact opposite of Ayn Rand's America, where customers had unprecedented purchasing power (because of unionized labor, targeted cost-of-living adjustments, free education, retirement benefits, social programs, great public transportation, entitlements, comprehensive employer-provided health care, and high savings). Indeed, in Ayn Rand's America, capital was tightly controlled for the benefit of the American middle class, a time when labor had a distinct advantage (because capital had yet to be freed to harvest all the world's labor - aka globalization). The Reagan Revolution effectively solved capital's labor problem and its concurrent (forced-)obligation to the middle class. Where have you been buddy? Starting in the 80s, large portions of the aforementioned New Deal apparatus was repealed in order to un-burden capital so that society could reap the efficiency gains (in the form of increased investment, innovation, jobs, competition, cheaper prices, etc). This is the new reality, despite what dear leader Boehner says.
Dear friend, Sallow, please let me explain the real problem, which Boehner is paid handsomely never to admit.
By getting rid of the extravagant wage & benefit structure of the postwar years - and by Volker switching the Fed's task from full employment (Keynes) to fighting inflation & invoking austerity (Friedman) - the consumer lost many of the financial supports which enabled consumption.
As a result, starting in the 80s, consumers resorted to increased borrowing in order to make up for lost wages/benefits/programs/entitlements/etc. [Additionally, by removing government from health care - specifically through Reagan's removal of anti-trust "mega-merger" regulations - we saw massive industry consolidation, concentration, and monopolization, leaving the country with a fixed web of no-compete zones, thus allowing Kaiser and BlueCross to raise rates over 5% of inflation without the threat of losing consumers - because consumers had nowhere to go. By trapping - and fleecing - average consumers inside monopolies, we saw national debt levels skyrocket, leaving the average consumer teetering on the edge of insolvency, i.e., one housing meltdown from collective economic death] Put crudely: we used credit cards to make up for the money, jobs, and benefits that never tickled down. Indeed, we used credit cards and exotic debt-vehicles to pay for the increased costs of industries which had captured Washington and bid up prices beyond what any competitive market would have allowed. [Indeed, the minute we did as Reagan instructed and got off capital's back, business made a "B Line" for 3rd world, sweatshop labor. The American worker never stood a chance] Both parties are 100% guilty of advocating the neoliberal globalized flight of capital to 3rd world labor markets. This flight of capital created unprecedented wealth amongst the elite business owners and their share holders (of which, shamefully, I count myself), but it destroyed middle class living standards and purchasing power. Worse: attempts to fix this structural flaw with debt-based consumption destroyed America for the foreseeable future.
So here is my point, dear, dear Sallow, respectfully:
John Gault is not on strike.
To the contrary: John Gault owns Washington. He spends billions a year funding elections and capturing the regulatory process. When he makes a mistake, government bails him out. When he wants to invest, government subsidizes him. He's got the American consumer by the balls, held captive by his anti-competitive health insurance and energy monopolies. He's on the golf course and his pets have better health care than his workers.
Why on earth would he ever go on strike? He makes all the money.
(Psst: you've been lied to by John Boehner, who works for John Gault)
Ayn Rand made sense during the postwar years when capital was over-taxed and over-regulated.
Then came 30 years of the Reagan Revolution when taxes were reduced (from high 70% to mid 30%, with the effective rate being much lower: 15% for capital gains and 0% for many heavily subsidized companies; not to mention endless loopholes and offshore tricks). Moreover, the regulatory apparatus was completely captured by targeted lobbying dollars, such that regulations are now literally written by industry insiders. Don't take my word for it. Study the struggles Brooks Lee Bourne had in the Clinton administration trying to prevent Phil Graham from ending Glass-Stegall - this is the prototype of how the regulatory system has been captured by business. In fact, Reagan, Bush & Clinton (under the advice of Greenspan) believed that all regulatory positions should be filled by industry insiders.
Unlike the days of Ayn Rand, big business is sitting on more liquid than at any time in the past 50 years, and - as I said - they own the regulatory process, despite the current bluster over Obama coming after Wall Street (which is more for public consumption. Obama is not going to regulate his donors, he just needs to convince his idiot-base that he is on task).
So yes, Sallow dear boy: business has ample money to invest - in fact they have been in
crisis-mode for over a decade because they don't know where to put their surplus capital in order to realize the returns of yesteryear. It got so bad that Wall Street had to invent whole new derivative markets to satisfy the unprecedented demand created by neoliberalism, which - because of tax reductions on the very wealthy - created more cash than Wall Street could handle.
So a question arises my dear, dear Sallow: why didn't the Bush tax cuts go into the real economy? Why did so much of that money get burned in phantom, ponzi derivative schemes? (Indeed, a broader questions arises: what explains the immense financialization of the economy since the 70s, i.e., the flight from real economy investment to unproductive speculation, which seems not to lead to job creation but massive asset bubbles and wealth destruction. Why has the real economy been so under-invested?]
Answer: the real economy lacks consumers, which is why so much money is now routinely burned in speculative garbage. This is the real crisis of the neoliberal policies of Reagan/Bush/Clinton: there is no money trickling down to the poor consumers and the real economy (again: the aggregate collection of consumers no longer makes enough money to buy things), while the over-abundance of capital on top is grossly disproportionate to the investment opportunities, especially since there are not enough solvent consumers "down there" to sell things to. (This is what happens when you drive down wages to give capital more money to invest: you end up "firing" your consumers. This is why capitalism has been in crisis mode since the late 70s, when Reagan/Thatcher and the neoliberals took over. We are finally experiencing the long-term effect of those policies)
Meaning: this is the exact opposite of Ayn Rand's America, where customers had unprecedented purchasing power (because of unionized labor, targeted cost-of-living adjustments, free education, retirement benefits, social programs, great public transportation, entitlements, comprehensive employer-provided health care, and high savings). Indeed, in Ayn Rand's America, capital was tightly controlled for the benefit of the American middle class, a time when labor had a distinct advantage (because capital had yet to be freed to harvest all the world's labor - aka globalization). The Reagan Revolution effectively solved capital's labor problem and its concurrent (forced-)obligation to the middle class. Where have you been buddy? Starting in the 80s, large portions of the aforementioned New Deal apparatus was repealed in order to un-burden capital so that society could reap the efficiency gains (in the form of increased investment, innovation, jobs, competition, cheaper prices, etc). This is the new reality, despite what dear leader Boehner says.
Dear friend, Sallow, please let me explain the real problem, which Boehner is paid handsomely never to admit.
By getting rid of the extravagant wage & benefit structure of the postwar years - and by Volker switching the Fed's task from full employment (Keynes) to fighting inflation & invoking austerity (Friedman) - the consumer lost many of the financial supports which enabled consumption.
As a result, starting in the 80s, consumers resorted to increased borrowing in order to make up for lost wages/benefits/programs/entitlements/etc. [Additionally, by removing government from health care - specifically through Reagan's removal of anti-trust "mega-merger" regulations - we saw massive industry consolidation, concentration, and monopolization, leaving the country with a fixed web of no-compete zones, thus allowing Kaiser and BlueCross to raise rates over 5% of inflation without the threat of losing consumers - because consumers had nowhere to go. By trapping - and fleecing - average consumers inside monopolies, we saw national debt levels skyrocket, leaving the average consumer teetering on the edge of insolvency, i.e., one housing meltdown from collective economic death] Put crudely: we used credit cards to make up for the money, jobs, and benefits that never tickled down. Indeed, we used credit cards and exotic debt-vehicles to pay for the increased costs of industries which had captured Washington and bid up prices beyond what any competitive market would have allowed. [Indeed, the minute we did as Reagan instructed and got off capital's back, business made a "B Line" for 3rd world, sweatshop labor. The American worker never stood a chance] Both parties are 100% guilty of advocating the neoliberal globalized flight of capital to 3rd world labor markets. This flight of capital created unprecedented wealth amongst the elite business owners and their share holders (of which, shamefully, I count myself), but it destroyed middle class living standards and purchasing power. Worse: attempts to fix this structural flaw with debt-based consumption destroyed America for the foreseeable future.
So here is my point, dear, dear Sallow, respectfully:
John Gault is not on strike.
To the contrary: John Gault owns Washington. He spends billions a year funding elections and capturing the regulatory process. When he makes a mistake, government bails him out. When he wants to invest, government subsidizes him. He's got the American consumer by the balls, held captive by his anti-competitive health insurance and energy monopolies. He's on the golf course and his pets have better health care than his workers.
Why on earth would he ever go on strike? He makes all the money.
(Psst: you've been lied to by John Boehner, who works for John Gault)
Last edited:
Dot Com
Nullius in verba
Randians are whack- jobs 
Taiibi destroys Ayn in his book Griftopia. Giver 'er a read mate 
Taiibi destroys Ayn in his book Griftopia. Giver 'er a read mate
Last edited:
Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
Thank you John Boehner for confirming what I already knew.
Odd how subscribing to his philosophy is, essentially, conceding that the wealthy are holding the economy hostage. Their terms for release? A better deal. More than they've already got.
GOP's answer? QUICK! GIVE THEM WHATEVER THEY WANT!
Mr. Shaman
Senior Member
- May 4, 2010
- 23,892
- 822
- 48
Boehner is right, we need to sacrifice more jobs to appease the jobs fairy so that it will look kindly upon us and create more jobs.
Absolutely!!!!
The 1%ers are already.....
....regarding their present-situation!!!!
The 1%ers are already.....
....regarding their present-situation!!!!
Similar threads
New Topics
-
This Video Explains In Detail How Trump Was Railroaded By Judge Juan Merchan- Started by mudwhistle
- Replies: 0
-
-
The left's latest conspiracy theory: Trump tried to "use the nuclear codes" on Iran- Started by marvin martian
- Replies: 2
-
