Released yesterday by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1249
I wish our President and our Congress would listen to their own Budget people.
(http://cboblog.cbo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Figure1_forWeb.png)
A good first step might be to get the economy growing again. Humming economy = more tax receipts.
Quote from: we vs us on July 29, 2010, 09:07:09 AM
A good first step might be to get the economy growing again. Humming economy = more tax receipts.
Do you think they are on the right track for that at the moment?
Quote from: we vs us on July 29, 2010, 09:07:09 AM
A good first step might be to get the economy growing again. Humming economy = more tax receipts.
More jobs = More tax receipts.
More commerce = More jobs.
So, what can we do to increase commerce?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 29, 2010, 10:11:48 AM
More jobs = More tax receipts.
More commerce = More jobs.
So, what can we do to increase commerce?
Mo'h stimulus
(http://geekwhisperin.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/walken-cowbell.jpg)
What is holding back commerce right now?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 29, 2010, 10:41:46 AM
What is holding back commerce right now?
Graphs like the above being the only thing the public sees.
Quote from: Townsend on July 29, 2010, 10:43:31 AM
Graphs like the above being the only thing the public sees.
Ok. What should the public see?
What can be shown that will increase a businesses confidence in the economy?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 29, 2010, 10:44:56 AM
Ok. What should the public see?
What can be shown that will increase a businesses confidence in the economy?
I wasn't criticizing the graph.
It's the only thing I see all the time and it effects my spending.
If I saw some sort of positive outcome from something for more than one day...maybe a few weeks of something improving, I might increase my spending.
The constant negative graphs being what sells commercial time and the sky-is-falling economic outlook and "surprises" constantly coming at me kill it for me.
That's even with my knowledge that all of this is just someone's or some group's best guess.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 29, 2010, 10:11:48 AM
More jobs = More tax receipts.
More commerce = More jobs.
So, what can we do to increase commerce?
Good question. Corporations are sitting on 100's of billions of $. None are investing or hiring. That's essentially where the stimulus has gone: into the stock prices of Fortune 500's.
I'm at a loss, really. I don't think tax cuts are the way to go. Why give corps more money they won't spend? I don't want to re-confiscate the money via huge taxes, though (Bush tax cuts are another issue, IMO . . . ). I'd rather just the companies start hiring already.
As I understand it, the stumbling block isn't so much an uncertain political and regulatory atmosphere as simple overcapacity in almost every industry. Business has to work through its existing inventories before they can build/manufacture more. That's happening, but slowly . . . hence hiring is happening only slowly. How to speed that up is beyond me. Maybe we really do just have to wait it out, support people until hiring picks up.
I think there are anecdotal indications that things are picking up, though. My industry has been surprised by the suddenness of the turnaround, and I think that bodes well for the rest of the economy. We're a bellwether of things to come. I've stopped being a total pessimist, though nathan's deflation scenario is uber scary, and there are indications that that could be on the horizon.
What if people are finally learning a lesson about a binge and purge economy and everyone (individuals and corporations) is simply starting to learn to live a more austere lifestyle? What would happen in a scenario like that where unemployment remains in the 10% range (or 16% if you want to count those no longer looking for work).
Just an idle thought.
Over capacity is the key. And the reason for that may be quite simple (Gaspar will love that!). Consider that the growth of the post WWII economy paralleled the Baby Boom generation. Now that my group is maturing and seeking more service than durable goods consumption, you see that the hospitality and medical industries are growing. But, we no longer are buying first homes, first refrigerators, lawn mowers, washer/dryers, cars etc. The truth is that the following generations are not consuming as much due to their decreased numbers. Family size is shrinking. Even though the large wage earning is being shifted to younger workers because of technology and age discrimination, it is not enough to make up for the BB's huge blip in consumption after WWII.
Take note that what used to be considered durable goods, those goods lasting more than a few years, like refrigerators, lawn mowers and washer/dryers, no longer last more than 2-3 years. They don't even outlast your typical car loan and aren't worth repairing. That is an effort by durable goods manufacturers to recapture losses in production due to shrinking first time buyers. A lot of economic forecasts take durable goods manufacturing into their projections. When the definition of durable goods has changed those forecasts are suspect. How many other definitions are changing?
If we want to survive this loss in commerce, we need to look back to our economic models from pre-WWII and see how they performed with smaller demographics. Then the sobering thought for stockholders that some industries just aren't going to be as profitable as they have been during the BB blip, regardless of how hard their management tries to cheapen their products, will become apparent.
Quote from: waterboy on July 29, 2010, 11:43:17 AM
Just an idle thought.
Over capacity is the key. And the reason for that may be quite simple (Gaspar will love that!). Consider that the growth of the post WWII economy paralleled the Baby Boom generation. Now that my group is maturing and seeking more service than durable goods consumption, you see that the hospitality and medical industries are growing. But, we no longer are buying first homes, first refrigerators, lawn mowers, washer/dryers, cars etc. The truth is that the following generations are not consuming as much due to their decreased numbers. Family size is shrinking. Even though the large wage earning is being shifted to younger workers because of technology and age discrimination, it is not enough to make up for the BB's huge blip in consumption after WWII.
Take note that what used to be considered durable goods, those goods lasting more than a few years, like refrigerators, lawn mowers and washer/dryers, no longer last more than 2-3 years. They don't even outlast your typical car loan and aren't worth repairing. That is an effort by durable goods manufacturers to recapture losses in production due to shrinking first time buyers. A lot of economic forecasts take durable goods manufacturing into their projections. When the definition of durable goods has changed those forecasts are suspect. How many other definitions are changing?
If we want to survive this loss in commerce, we need to look back to our economic models from pre-WWII and see how they performed with smaller demographics. Then the sobering thought for stockholders that some industries just aren't going to be as profitable as they have been during the BB blip, regardless of how hard their management tries to cheapen their products, will become apparent.
Great point on shrinking consumption amongst baby boomers. Even people my age (just shy of being a BB myself) are moving out of the aquisition phase of their lives. Families are getting smaller, yet the overall population of the United States and globally keeps growing. People who migrate to the States often arrive with little more than a suitcase of clothing. They buy durable goods.
I don't really buy the notion that durable goods are made cheaper to recapture money lost due to a smaller buying pool. It's got a whole lot more to do with consumers treating durable goods like commodities where price is the primary consideration. Consumers demand lower prices and you can no longer rely on a particular brand name, say like RCA or Whirlpool, to equate to quality like you used to. I see it more as the Wal-Martizing of consumer goods. Demand cheaper prices from vendors and they will start making cheaper goods.
As far as companies and industries dealing with lower profitability, that's what the unemployment issue is all about, letting workers go so the company can remain solvent with lower demand for their product.
Quote from: waterboy on July 29, 2010, 11:43:17 AM
Take note that what used to be considered durable goods, those goods lasting more than a few years, like refrigerators, lawn mowers and washer/dryers, no longer last more than 2-3 years. They don't even outlast your typical car loan and aren't worth repairing.
I hate that part.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 29, 2010, 11:33:50 AM
What if people are finally learning a lesson about a binge and purge economy and everyone (individuals and corporations) is simply starting to learn to live a more austere lifestyle?
Rofl!
C'mon, really? Austerity -- "learning to live with less" -- has no place in capitalism. it contradicts a core value, which is the profit motive. We will always want more, to do better, to be bigger and to control more. That's the foundation of our system. There's simply no way to discard that as a guiding macro principle and be successful within our world economy.
And that's where we get all turned around when we try to put a moralistic, "didja learn that lesson yet, plebes?" filter on this stuff. There's no lesson here. The lesson is -- as it ever has been -- sell before the other guy, and buy before him, too.
Quote from: we vs us on July 29, 2010, 12:03:06 PM
Rofl!
C'mon, really? Austerity -- "learning to live with less" -- has no place in capitalism. it contradicts a core value, which is the profit motive. We will always want more, to do better, to be bigger and to control more. That's the foundation of our system. There's simply no way to discard that as a guiding macro principle and be successful within our world economy.
And that's where we get all turned around when we try to put a moralistic, "didja learn that lesson yet, plebes?" filter on this stuff. There's no lesson here. The lesson is -- as it ever has been -- sell before the other guy, and buy before him, too.
Actually, it's not so far out there. Those who suffered through the depression generally were very good savers and minimalist consumers and are/were leaving behind pretty large nest eggs.
There's no incentive to consume heavily when one thinks there's a possibility their job or business could go south in the near future. What I'm trying to convey has nothing to do with the overall concept of capitalism nor macro econ, it's simply the psychological effect of recessionary times and perhaps people learning a lesson that over-borrowing and over-spending can and does lead to economic disaster.
Lots of interesting analysis, but no real solutions.
I'll ask the question again in a different format.
What does business need to see in order to engage, and expand commerce?
We have established that the wealthy/businesses are hording cash and waiting.
What are they waiting for?
It's an easy question, and yes Waterboy, it's a simple answer.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 29, 2010, 11:55:54 AM
Great point on shrinking consumption amongst baby boomers. Even people my age (just shy of being a BB myself) are moving out of the aquisition phase of their lives. Families are getting smaller, yet the overall population of the United States and globally keeps growing. People who migrate to the States often arrive with little more than a suitcase of clothing. They buy durable goods.
I don't really buy the notion that durable goods are made cheaper to recapture money lost due to a smaller buying pool. It's got a whole lot more to do with consumers treating durable goods like commodities where price is the primary consideration. Consumers demand lower prices and you can no longer rely on a particular brand name, say like RCA or Whirlpool, to equate to quality like you used to. I see it more as the Wal-Martizing of consumer goods. Demand cheaper prices from vendors and they will start making cheaper goods.
As far as companies and industries dealing with lower profitability, that's what the unemployment issue is all about, letting workers go so the company can remain solvent with lower demand for their product.
Yes, but its irrelevant why the goods are being cheapened. The fact is there are no consumer durable goods anymore. A new generation insists on lower priced goods even though durable goods like refrigerators come from mature industries who are already producing low cost products. The basic design of a refrigerator, lawnmower, w/d, has not changed for over 60 years. They are basically industries relying on population growth to increase sales each year and good systems and material management to increase profitability. Now, that growth has slowed. In real terms, it has reversed direction as much of our population growth is in the low income demographics. Yet, stockholders still insist on continued profits at the BB consumption level. It isn't going to happen.
Here is a perfect, real world example Conan. I recently had to replace a steel braided inlet hose for my water heater. It lasted 2 years. The previous hose lasted 20 years. Since it is a product I usually only buy when the water heater fails, I am not too concerned about the price of the product. However, the previous water heater lasted 20 years as well. Reports are that current water heaters last less than 5 years. So, there was no demand to Wal-Martize the cost of the hose or the water heater for that matter. The manufacturer merely realized he didn't have to build such a good hose (now built in China using really cheap labor) and that with today's realities he could sell the same braided hose at Home Depot for the same price and 10 times as frequently with little negative repercussion. That is greed and shortsighted use of resources, but HOme Depot and the stockholders of all companies involved are ecstatic at the new profitability.
So, the next generation who are making more money because of their technical, digital savvy, are paying 10 times as much for their "durable goods" as we did.
Waterboy, I'm sure there's some planned obsolesence in there with consumer goods. Computers are a great example of that. My larger flat screen TV took a dump after about 14 months, should have bought the extended warranty, right? Talking to a TV repairman, he said it's really common for manufacturers (apparently many of them are guilty of this) to use capacitors which are slightly under-rated for the kind of duty they see. They know they will last just beyond the warranty period, then start popping.
Big box stores demand low prices from their vendors because everything is price-driven to them. That's why manufacturing has shifted to Maquilladoras in Mexico, China, and India. Cheap labor and using cheaper raw materials is how they manage to produce something at the same price point they were selling it at 20 to 25 years ago. Just like the example I use all the time of the little dorm refrigerators which now actually cost $10 less than they did 25 years ago.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 29, 2010, 12:15:39 PM
Lots of interesting analysis, but no real solutions.
I'll ask the question again in a different format.
What does business need to see in order to engage, and expand commerce?
We have established that the wealthy/businesses are hording cash and waiting.
What are they waiting for?
It's an easy question, and yes Waterboy, it's a simple answer.
Its not an easy question. If anyone around here had solutions that would actually work, they wouldn't be posting here. They wouldn't have the time or inclination. Informed analysis and comment is the best we can hope for.
But if you continue to insist on simple solutions, here are some...get used to working on lower profit margins. Look to the past to see how other generations dealt with similar problems. Spend more money on educating your work force, not indoctrinating them. Pay people at the top in some manner reflecting what they are really worth, not like sports stars. Utilize the entire work force instead of cherry picking the youngest, the cheapest and the most conservative. Fight conformity by rewarding creativity. And, stop looking for simple answers.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 29, 2010, 12:26:47 PM
Waterboy, I'm sure there's some planned obsolesence in there with consumer goods. Computers are a great example of that. My larger flat screen TV took a dump after about 14 months, should have bought the extended warranty, right? Talking to a TV repairman, he said it's really common for manufacturers (apparently many of them are guilty of this) to use capacitors which are slightly under-rated for the kind of duty they see. They know they will last just beyond the warranty period, then start popping.
Big box stores demand low prices from their vendors because everything is price-driven to them. That's why manufacturing has shifted to Maquilladoras in Mexico, China, and India. Cheap labor and using cheaper raw materials is how they manage to produce something at the same price point they were selling it at 20 to 25 years ago. Just like the example I use all the time of the little dorm refrigerators which now actually cost $10 less than they did 25 years ago.
So, don't pay any attention to economic forecasts that rely on durable goods forecasts. There are none. Other indicators are also failing. The result is that any forecast of budgets, consumption, production right now are quite suspect. We are experiencing massive changes in our society that are reflective of changing population demographics. Truth is we don't produce anything and what we do produce is subject to cheapening by shortsighted accountants and CEO's. Planned obsolesence was just discussion back in the 60's. Now it is de riguer.
The wide disparity in income stats should be just as frightening as the employment stats yet you rarely hear any mainstream discussion of why executives in our country make 100's of times the average wage earner even though other countries do not. In fact we seem to praise the process. We lose foreign investment because of that too.
All the rules are changing, as well as the motivations. Wevus' description of the capitalist mentality is part of that new reality imo. I remember when Whirlpool was quite satisfied with making a good product and offered its stockholders dependable returns in a mature industry. There were other industries that offered higher returns but more risk. THey all had their place. Then the era of raiders in the 80's changed all that. Their short term view of profits killed off the durable goods industries. But it doesn't have to stay this way and I believe it won't. Madoff stuck his finger down our throat and we are regurgitating all our largesse.
But its all so simple...I guess.
Quote from: waterboy on July 29, 2010, 12:28:03 PM
Its not an easy question. If anyone around here had solutions that would actually work, they wouldn't be posting here. They wouldn't have the time or inclination. Informed analysis and comment is the best we can hope for.
But if you continue to insist on simple solutions, here are some...get used to working on lower profit margins. Look to the past to see how other generations dealt with similar problems. Spend more money on educating your work force, not indoctrinating them. Pay people at the top in some manner reflecting what they are really worth, not like sports stars. Utilize the entire work force instead of cherry picking the youngest, the cheapest and the most conservative. Fight conformity by rewarding creativity. And, stop looking for simple answers.
Sigh.
There are two factors that freeze commerce and slow growth.
1. Risk (increase)
2. Return (decrease)
Increase risk, and business/wealthy close their purses. Even if return remains the same.
Lower return and businesses avoid risk altogether, and cease capital expansion.
So, again, what does business need to see in order to engage, and expand commerce?
What are they waiting for?
C'mon, even a Keynesian can answer this.
This is all so confusing. Are we supposed to be mad at the wealthy/corporate folks or not? I mean, the wealthy are not paying their fair share right?
Quote from: guido911 on July 29, 2010, 04:26:03 PM
This all so confusing. Are we supposed to be mad at the wealthy/corporate folks or not? I mean, the wealthy are not paying their fair share right?
Blueberries, I like 'em.
The economic system as a whole is broken and nothing we do can change it. We will just create another bubble and have another downturn later and it will get worse each time it repeats.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 29, 2010, 04:07:16 PM
Sigh.
There are two factors that freeze commerce and slow growth.
1. Risk (increase)
2. Return (decrease)
Increase risk, and business/wealthy close their purses. Even if return remains the same.
Lower return and businesses avoid risk altogether, and cease capital expansion.
So, again, what does business need to see in order to engage, and expand commerce?
What are they waiting for?
C'mon, even a Keynesian can answer this.
Perhaps the government showing some confidence toward the economy and trying to help create a more business-friendly climate where companies would we willing to take risks? Tax cuts for quality jobs?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 29, 2010, 12:02:35 PM
I hate that part.
Yeah, I try to buy quality when it is to be found. I guess you can count me as part of the problem. :P
Seriously, though, if we can head off deflation, we'll be fine. We might stagnate for a while at 8% unemployment, but that's not by any means catastrophic. It's well within the norm. Expectations are high, though, as we're coming off a long period of about as close to full employment as you can get without massive inflation. Between that and the disappearance of the home equity ATM, we will have to accept somewhat less from the economy than we previously had. It's simply unsustainable given the significant decline in real wages since their peak in the 60s.
Despite astronomical productivity gains, workers make less now than they did in 1964. If we continue with the same priorities, it seems obvious the results will remain the same. With wage differentials at historic highs, it's no wonder the middle class is getting squeezed out of existence and the economy is stuck in the toilet. We were just able to put off the pain for a decade and a half thanks to the mortgage loan racket.
Higher risk generally yields higher returns but it is a gamble. Many businesses in the last decade wanted the high returns but were unable to stomach the losses.
Lower risk generally yields lower returns but is less of a gamble. Low exposure. Long, stable returns.
That's why the prudent businessman balances these two factors.
Maybe I'm just too dense. What you're saying is pretty meaningless to me. If you mean that the simple answer is that we reduce risk and increase returns to get the economy back in gear, that is pretty slight on specifics. What, protect the bankers from exposure to their past high risk gambles? Ignore the basic premises laid out above?
Gaspar,
It's simple - it needs me to go out this weekend and buy a jar of bar-b-que sauce and a brisket and some ribs to put it on. I have been putting it off way to long, and I intend to do that this weekend. Reasor's at 15th street, right??
Now, extend that 300 million times over a wide variety of items - ALL MADE HERE! - and we are humming!
All,
Check the label! If it says 'Made in China', think about what that is doing to your fellow Americans. See if you can't find one Made in USA.
Yes, it really IS that simple.
Sales pitch; go buy a new car battery this weekend!
Quote from: waterboy on July 30, 2010, 01:17:45 PM
Maybe I'm just too dense. What you're saying is pretty meaningless to me. If you mean that the simple answer is that we reduce risk and increase returns to get the economy back in gear, that is pretty slight on specifics. What, protect the bankers from exposure to their past high risk gambles? Ignore the basic premises laid out above?
You're not dense at all. I think you've got it. The details are what the government can currently control. The details are what is stagnating the economy. The details are what drives perception.
Here are the details.
First of all, businesses/wealthy perceive higher risk because the administration has shown uncertainty in how it desires to regulate various industries. They perceive more risk because they understand that some sectors are getting propped up while others are being allowed to fail. This creates the unnatural market forces that make forecasting returns very difficult. I call it "Blowing Bubbles."
Second, businesses/wealthy perceive lower returns because of the unwillingness to engage in risk (exactly as you said). They also see lower returns based on decreased demand as a result of unemployment. They can forecast lower returns because their taxes are increasing in January. They understand that this not only affects them, but the other companies they rely on, and the consumers that drive their sales. The administration could easily turn off this flag by extending the current tax structure, or enabling additional tax cuts capable of increasing returns. Unfortunately, even the very budget that President Obama promised would save the middle-class from increased tax burden in January has now been tabled.
So this is what businesses/wealthy are left with. Our investment in new business will be risky (increased cost to sales). Our operating expenses will go up. It will be harder to do business.
You get it.
You, as a liberal, just like to put the blame on business/wealthy. You can if you wish. That's your prerogative. You should be happy that all of those evil rich people and big-businesses are feeling Obama's boot-heel. Unfortunate for you, you can't force businesses/wealthy to spend. All you can do is create an atmosphere where commerce is attractive.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 30, 2010, 02:00:17 PM
You're not dense at all. I think you've got it. The details are what the government can currently control. The details are what is stagnating the economy. The details are what drives perception.
Here are the details.
First of all, businesses/wealthy perceive higher risk because the administration has shown uncertainty in how it desires to regulate various industries. They perceive more risk because they understand that some sectors are getting propped up while others are being allowed to fail. This creates the unnatural market forces that make forecasting returns very difficult. I call it "Blowing Bubbles."
Second, businesses/wealthy perceive lower returns because of the unwillingness to engage in risk (exactly as you said). They also see lower returns based on decreased demand as a result of unemployment. They can forecast lower returns because their taxes are increasing in January. They understand that this not only affects them, but the other companies they rely on, and the consumers that drive their sales. The administration could easily turn off this flag by extending the current tax structure, or enabling additional tax cuts capable of increasing returns. Unfortunately, even the very budget that President Obama promised would save the middle-class from increased tax burden in January has now been tabled.
So this is what businesses/wealthy are left with. Our investment in new business will be risky (increased cost to sales). Our operating expenses will go up. It will be harder to do business.
You get it.
You, as a liberal, just like to put the blame on business/wealthy. You can if you wish. That's your prerogative. You should be happy that all of those evil rich people and big-businesses are feeling Obama's boot-heel. Unfortunate for you, you can't force businesses/wealthy to spend. All you can do is create an atmosphere where commerce is attractive.
Or the government imposes a draconian "savings" tax for people being too stingy so the government can confiscate the money and pump it into the economy. But they really don't need to do that since they can simply print currency at will and devalue the dollar or borrow even more money that we don't know when we will pay back.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 30, 2010, 02:19:06 PM
Or the government imposes a draconian "savings" tax for people being too stingy so the government can confiscate the money and pump it into the economy. But they really don't need to do that since they can simply print currency at will and devalue the dollar or borrow even more money that we don't know when we will pay back.
I have a feeling we will be printing and borrowing "like there's no tomorrow." Literally.
The Ten "Cannots" of Political Economy:
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-payer.
You cannot further the brotherhood of mankind by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative.
You cannot help man permanently by doing for them what they could do and should do for themselves.
That's quite a little world you've devised. I hope it works out for you! Sounds like a web site is providing you some tasty brew.
As for me, how many times, and in how many ways must I say and prove.....I do not begrudge the wealthy their status, and their money, nor do I blame them for hard times. I have been a wage earner, a wage payer, an over paid executive and an overworked entrepreneur. I have befriended and enjoyed the company of almost all demographics and job titles as the Bible suggests I do. Currently, I am practically semi-retired and a wage slave once again. It sucks big time. I am more aware now than ever before the unjustifiable and growing separation between haves and have nots.
To however suggest that the above categories of people are blameless for their arrogance, risky behavior, greed, sloth, selfishness and bullying is naive. This recession was brought to us on the backs of bankers, financiers, politicians and corporations who lived too well. And they want to blame it on our credit habits!! They dumped into the laps of the common man and now expect us all to beg for their guidance with "cannot" platitudes like the ones you listed. I especially like the one in red. It reminds me of Polonius' advice in Shakespeare, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be."
But listen, I am surprised at your thought process. It sounds to me like you want to favor a slice of population that has been particularly guilty of bad ethics, poor management of resources, poor management of risk and shortsighted leadership. You think they should be rewarded with a bailout of sorts by lowering their tax burden, lowering the regulation of their businesses and generally bowing to their profit making abilities. Profits that would soar and be redistributed if we would just let them be. That sounds like a load to me. Its a cure worse than the disease. It sounds....liberal.
Note: after re-reading my post I find it needs a refinement. I do not blame the wealthy as a class for our difficult times. THat encompasses a large population, many of whom had nothing to do with it. And, I believe we all had some contribution. I do however find fault with the business community who steadfastly clings to a mantra of lower taxes, lower wages, less regulation and high executive compensation as some sort of miracle religion. They rolled the dice and failed the consumer. Now they want to blame government and the consumer.
Quote from: waterboy on July 30, 2010, 03:22:21 PM
That's quite a little world you've devised. I hope it works out for you! Sounds like a web site is providing you some tasty brew.
To however suggest that the above categories of people are blameless for their arrogance, risky behavior, greed, sloth, selfishness and bullying is naive. This recession was brought to us on the backs of bankers, financiers, politicians and corporations who lived too well. And they want to blame it on our credit habits!! They dumped into the laps of the common man and now expect us all to beg for their guidance with "cannot" platitudes like the ones you listed. I especially like the one in red. It reminds me of Polonius' advice in Shakespeare, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be."
Exactly as I was saying. You should rejoice. In one breath you say you harbor no ill towards the wealthy, and then spend a paragraph condemning them. They are getting what you feel they deserve. Turn that frown upside-down. Your message is exactly the same as President Obama's. This is exactly what they are hearing. Praise and condemnation in a single stanza.
Quote
But listen, I am surprised at your thought process. It sounds to me like you want to favor a slice of population that has been particularly guilty of bad ethics, poor management of resources, poor management of risk and shortsighted leadership. You think they should be rewarded with a bailout of sorts by lowering their tax burden, lowering the regulation of their businesses and generally bowing to their profit making abilities. Profits that would soar and be redistributed if we would just let them be. That sounds like a load to me. Its a cure worse than the disease. It sounds....liberal.
I wish to favor no one!! I also wish to punish no one!!
That is the difference. You still hunger for some kind of retribution. Well, you are getting it. I'm sorry if the war on business leaves civilian casualties, but that is the nature of the battle.
[/quote]
Well, you're wrong. No other way to put it. Businessmen always ask for these things, but they never really expect to get them and would be fearful if they did. Most would be glad to get a fraction of what they beg for and ecstatic if they got bennies and their competitors didn't. Don't glorify the business world. BTW, I am the owner of a BBA and I AM angry at what passes as management leadership these days. Know that you are but an infinitesimal part of a huge barnyard of blindered animals all moving around in herds.
But, I ran your ideas past a couple of my friends in case I am suffering early onset dementia. One a recent PoliSci grad who works for an oil company. They've seen these rants on Libertarian websites and in their e-mailsa and are just as nonplussed as I am. Of course, I may still be fading away.
Its weird really. The more cogent arguments, facts, logic and reality presented to you folks, the more intractable you become. That ability to commit to unsupportable dogma in the face of contrary evidence is something I lack. I suppose that is why much of the religious right is turned off by Libertarians. It is a conflict of dogma.
Worship your corporate, conformist masters but don't expect me to be a part of it.
How can anyone say: "overpaid executive"?
There's no objective method the government and envious individuals can use to devise what an executive is worth. Why would anyone want the responsibilty and headache of running a multi-national company with 50,000 employees for a pay grade that's 10% more than the production staff?
The company board determines what an executive's services are worth to a company and grant a bonus or some other source of income commiserate with performance.
I've worked on a commission or nominal salary/bonus basis for years as a rep and as a sales manager. I appear to earn exactly what I'm worth to the companies I work for as they've never griped about what I'm being paid nor tried to cut my compensation.
Quote from: waterboy on July 30, 2010, 04:11:40 PM
Well, you're wrong. No other way to put it. Businessmen always ask for these things, but they never really expect to get them and would be fearful if they did. Most would be glad to get a fraction of what they beg for and ecstatic if they got bennies and their competitors didn't. Don't glorify the business world. BTW, I am the owner of a BBA and I AM angry at what passes as management leadership these days. Know that you are but an infinitesimal part of a huge barnyard of blindered animals all moving around in herds.
But, I ran your ideas past a couple of my friends in case I am suffering early onset dementia. One a recent PoliSci grad who works for an oil company. They've seen these rants on Libertarian websites and in their e-mailsa and are just as nonplussed as I am. Of course, I may still be fading away.
Its weird really. The more cogent arguments, facts, logic and reality presented to you folks, the more intractable you become. That ability to commit to unsupportable dogma in the face of contrary evidence is something I lack. I suppose that is why much of the religious right is turned off by Libertarians. It is a conflict of dogma.
Worship your corporate, conformist masters but don't expect me to be a part of it.
Ok. You are very clear.
I don't have too much problem with an over paid executive leading a successful company. I do have a problem with them leading a failing company, getting a platinum parachute and getting a government bailout. Freedom to succeed includes freedom to fail. There should be no big reward for failure.
Gaspar, your central premise is simply incorrect. Business is not expanding because there is already too much capacity chasing too little demand. It has nothing to do with possible regulation except in the minds of CNBC talking heads. Why should I hire someone to help me install computers when few people are buying new ones anyway?
Quote from: nathanm on July 31, 2010, 01:14:09 PM
Gaspar, your central premise is simply incorrect. Business is not expanding because there is already too much capacity chasing too little demand. It has nothing to do with possible regulation except in the minds of CNBC talking heads. Why should I hire someone to help me install computers when few people are buying new ones anyway?
No, no, no...You are supposed to blame FOX, not CNBC. (Or, if you can't blame FOX, blame Bush.)
Since we seem to want to incessantly beat the tax drum as the one and only solution to everything, I wanted to include this little nugget from an excellent article in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html) about the Bush tax cuts:
Quote
One of the most common objections to letting the cuts expire for those in the highest tax brackets is that it would hurt small businesses. As Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) recently put it, allowing the cuts to lapse would amount to "a job-killing tax hike on small business during tough economic times."
This claim is misleading. If, as proposed, the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire for the highest earners, the vast majority of small businesses will be unaffected. Less than 2 percent of tax returns reporting small-business income are filed by taxpayers in the top two income brackets -- individuals earning more than about $170,000 a year and families earning more than about $210,000 a year.
And just as most small businesses aren't owned by people in the top income brackets, most people in the top income brackets don't rely mainly on small-business income: According to the Tax Policy Center, such proceeds make up a majority of income for about 40 percent of households in the top income bracket and a third of households in the second-highest bracket. If the objective is to help small businesses, continuing the Bush tax cuts on high-income taxpayers isn't the way to go -- it would miss more than 98 percent of small-business owners and would primarily help people who don't make most of their money off those businesses.
Quote from: we vs us on August 01, 2010, 07:33:13 AM
Since we seem to want to incessantly beat the tax drum as the one and only solution to everything, I wanted to include this little nugget from an excellent article in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073002671.html) about the Bush tax cuts:
They're just swinging back to the left now that we have a D President.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 01, 2010, 10:45:11 AM
They're just swinging back to the left now that we have a D President.
How about Greenspan? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/01/alan-greenspan-extending_n_666549.html)
Who would you believe?
Quote from: we vs us on August 01, 2010, 11:35:29 AM
How about Greenspan? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/01/alan-greenspan-extending_n_666549.html)
Who would you believe?
Certainly not Boehner (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/01/boehner-anti-intellectualism/)
I smell burnt toast...
Fran Tarkenton on the radio Friday night. He owns several businesses including a large corporate consulting firm. He was asked if his business had plans to expand.
Paraphrase (I was driving). "Our business is strong, thank god, but we are not doing any expansion, and we are advising our clients against any expansion until we know what this guy (President Obama) is going to do."
Thought it was interesting to hear this just minutes after hanging up on this thread Friday.
The Fran Tarkenton I remember had a terrible throwing arm where the passes wouldn't spiral, but wobble. His legacy was running for his life all over the field. The Vikings teams he played on won games with their defense, in spite of Fran's play. In Super Bowls, Fran Tarkenton played poorly and they lost all three.
As a businessman, he also pled guilty to fraudulent activities from his software company that led to overstated earnings and he paid a substantial penalty.
I couldn't care less about what he thinks about our President.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 02, 2010, 08:50:51 AM
The Fran Tarkenton I remember had a terrible throwing arm where the passes wouldn't spiral, but wobble. His legacy was running for his life all over the field. The Vikings teams he played on won games with their defense, in spite of Fran's play. In Super Bowls, Fran Tarkenton played poorly and they lost all three.
As a businessman, he also pled guilty to fraudulent activities from his software company that led to overstated earnings and he paid a substantial penalty.
I couldn't care less about what he thinks about our President.
+1
Next thing you know, Gas will be citing Jim Kelly on leadership skills. :D
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2010, 08:07:59 AM
Fran Tarkenton on the radio Friday night. He owns several businesses including a large corporate consulting firm. He was asked if his business had plans to expand.
Paraphrase (I was driving). "Our business is strong, thank god, but we are not doing any expansion, and we are advising our clients against any expansion until we know what this guy (President Obama) is going to do."
Thought it was interesting to hear this just minutes after hanging up on this thread Friday.
I'm curious, though . . . what is Fran Tarkington waiting for Obama to do or not do? What's the legislation that's keeping his business on hold? Surely it isn't just generic Fear of a Black Planet that's keeping Fran under the bed at night. I'd love to know what the specific problem or problems are that make him unwilling to hire.
Hey, I just thought it was interesting. ;)
Quote from: we vs us on August 02, 2010, 09:17:40 AM
I'm curious, though . . . what is Fran Tarkington waiting for Obama to do or not do? What's the legislation that's keeping his business on hold? Surely it isn't just generic Fear of a Black Planet that's keeping Fran under the bed at night. I'd love to know what the specific problem or problems are that make him unwilling to hire.
He was just talking about taxes. I thing the general sentiment is that everyone is holding their breath until a budget is/not passed, and waiting to see if that budget contains the measures preserving tax cuts for the middle class that the President promised again and again.
If it does not, and the current tax structure is allowed to expire, a significant amount of capital will be taken away from the people.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2010, 09:21:48 AM
If it does not, and the current tax structure is allowed to expire, a significant amount of capital will be taken away from the richest people.
Fixed that for you.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2010, 09:21:48 AM
He was just talking about taxes. I thing the general sentiment is that everyone is holding their breath until a budget is/not passed, and waiting to see if that budget contains the measures preserving tax cuts for the middle class that the President promised again and again.
If it does not, and the current tax structure is allowed to expire, a significant amount of capital will be taken away from the people.
Since when are people making over $180,000 a year middle class? That's top 4% territory. Maybe people making $20,000 a year are also middle class?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2010, 09:21:48 AM
He was just talking about taxes. I thing the general sentiment is that everyone is holding their breath until a budget is/not passed, and waiting to see if that budget contains the measures preserving tax cuts for the middle class that the President promised again and again.
If it does not, and the current tax structure is allowed to expire, a significant amount of capital will be taken away from the people.
Speaking of taxes, you'd better read this piece by David Stockman, Reagan's budget director. He doesn't subscribe to the notion that tax cuts are going to have good effects:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?_r=2
Quote from: we vs us on August 02, 2010, 09:24:46 AM
Fixed that for you.
Um. . .You don't get it. Obama's budget was not passed. So, in January everyone's taxes will go up.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2010, 09:37:37 AM
Um. . .You don't get it. Obama's budget was not passed. So, in January everyone's taxes will go up.
And who has been relieving themselves in the punch bowl, making it difficult to impossible to pass
anything?
Quote from: nathanm on August 02, 2010, 09:44:08 AM
And who has been relieving themselves in the punch bowl, making it difficult to impossible to pass anything?
They haven't even brought it to the floor. No one has voted on it. The Dems think that the new spending in the Obama Budget will kill them in the elections, so they tabled it.
Interesting, you provide people with quotes from business owners who are saying they are not hiring at the moment because of the uncertain political, taxation, and regulatory climate, but it's simply ignored and jeered at and those jeers are propped up with op-ed pieces from academians and bureaucrats who have never created a job in their entire life.
Here's a great local example as three of the global leaders in the combustion industry (i.e. flares and burners for the petroleum, chemical, and heating boiler markets) are HQ'd in the Tulsa area. Their business is fairly stagnant right now for new orders pending the outcome of cap and tax and uncertain federal emission guidelines amongst other issues. Local companies like Zeeco, Calidus, and John Zink are not adding any significant jobs right now and putting off capital expansion projects which is having an additional effect on local contractors who work with these companies.
Citing Keynes, Friedman, or a disgruntled former bureaucrat under Reagan still doesn't take into account that real people with logic and emotion run small companies and large corporations. It's not all about lower taxes as being the key to productivity, it's mostly about government stepping aside as much as practical and creating an environment which instills confidence in which those who make buying and hiring decisions feel confident enough to start spending money in those areas again.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2010, 09:46:11 AM
They haven't even brought it to the floor. No one has voted on it. The Dems think that the new spending in the Obama Budget will kill them in the elections, so they tabled it.
The only supporting article I could find re: Obama's budget said that the vote will happen in September, after the August recess. I couldn't find anything about it being tabled.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 02, 2010, 08:07:59 AM
Fran Tarkenton on the radio Friday night. He owns several businesses including a large corporate consulting firm. He was asked if his business had plans to expand.
Paraphrase (I was driving). "Our business is strong, thank god, but we are not doing any expansion, and we are advising our clients against any expansion until we know what this guy (President Obama) is going to do."
Thought it was interesting to hear this just minutes after hanging up on this thread Friday.
This is excellent news! They already have strong business and aren't expanding. So that means there is more work for a new startup and the balls to expand.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2010, 09:55:45 AM
Interesting, you provide people with quotes from business owners who are saying they are not hiring at the moment because of the uncertain political, taxation, and regulatory climate, but it's simply ignored and jeered at and those jeers are propped up with op-ed pieces from academians and bureaucrats who have never created a job in their entire life.
Here's a great local example as three of the global leaders in the combustion industry (i.e. flares and burners for the petroleum, chemical, and heating boiler markets) are HQ'd in the Tulsa area. Their business is fairly stagnant right now for new orders pending the outcome of cap and tax and uncertain federal emission guidelines amongst other issues. Local companies like Zeeco, Calidus, and John Zink are not adding any significant jobs right now and putting off capital expansion projects which is having an additional effect on local contractors who work with these companies.
Citing Keynes, Friedman, or a disgruntled former bureaucrat under Reagan still doesn't take into account that real people with logic and emotion run small companies and large corporations. It's not all about lower taxes as being the key to productivity, it's mostly about government stepping aside as much as practical and creating an environment which instills confidence in which those who make buying and hiring decisions feel confident enough to start spending money in those areas again.
Conan, you have simply provided them with more messengers to attack.
You're right, taxes are not the only issue. There are layers of potential burdensome legislation waiting for the gavel. I think Cap & Tax is dead, but the minds behind it are still in charge.
They have no intension of getting out of the way, and those that elected them don't want them to. So we are stuck in this ideological divide where the people want jobs but hate the very instrument that provides jobs. Some how the administration has fooled people into believing that prosperity is guided by government, and business is out to get them.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2010, 09:55:45 AM
Citing Keynes, Friedman, or a disgruntled former bureaucrat under Reagan still doesn't take into account that real people with logic and emotion run small companies and large corporations. It's not all about lower taxes as being the key to productivity, it's mostly about government stepping aside as much as practical and creating an environment which instills confidence in which those who make buying and hiring decisions feel confident enough to start spending money in those areas again.
Hey, if you want to trade anecdotes, my clients are spending money like gangbusters. Housing, Distribution, Hospitality, and so on. Even the attorneys have taken on new partners lately and are buying more stuff. When I ask them about their taxes going up, they roll their eyes and ask me if I thought they also refused to make money in the 90s. Seriously.
This whole "business is
afraid to expand" is a canard being pushed by people trying to score political points. The reality is that where money isn't being spent it's due to a lack of demand, not some nebulous thing that might happen in the future. Very much like the mythical bond vigilantes, actually.
People don't refuse to start, expand, or continue in a business because they're
scared.
Quote from: nathanm on August 02, 2010, 10:23:30 AM
Hey, if you want to trade anecdotes, my clients are spending money like gangbusters. Housing, Distribution, Hospitality, and so on. Even the attorneys have taken on new partners lately and are buying more stuff. When I ask them about their taxes going up, they roll their eyes and ask me if I thought they also refused to make money in the 90s. Seriously.
This whole "business is afraid to expand" is a canard being pushed by people trying to score political points. The reality is that where money isn't being spent it's due to a lack of demand, not some nebulous thing that might happen in the future. Very much like the mythical bond vigilantes, actually.
People don't refuse to start, expand, or continue in a business because they're scared.
I hope you are right. I would love to see this economy kick into gear.
I think this is a transcript of the radio interview with Tarkington. It's front page news on www.winbackwashington.com. Gaspar, correct me if I'm wrong.
QuoteFRAN - Yeah, what we're doing is I built 20 companies from the dirt. We work with hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs there with information, and now web-based tools that now help them to have a better chance to make it...our latest ones that we have built (is) a CRM product which is "Customer Relations Management" and they can go it and download it free and take a look at it. Here it is www.startercrm.com and what this product allows an entrepreneur, it allows you to expose your message to other people, organize your marketing, your sales, and get you one more customer. Go there, download the software free. We use all this cool technology and that is really what I wanted your listeners to go to. I think we can help that entrepreneur to get one more customer.
SCOTT - God love ya! Because they are swimming up a tide right now against their government are they not?
FRAN - I've listened to your programs...you're spot on. The truth has to be told to the silent majority, and that is the American people that are taxpayers...that are workers out there paying an unfair amount of taxes compared to the rest of the people. If we don't create a sense of desperation, change never happens and the silent majority has started its moving from the tea parties to other things going on. We're building momentum to November 2, to change the course of this country because we have a president and an administration that's inept. This president has no background for leadership. We have been afraid to really tell the truth: he has no background in leadership, no background in decision making. He has run nothing in his life. Harvard Law School: you don't learn how to make decisions in Harvard Law School. You learn how to make decisions and solve problems by running businesses every day. He's never had that, so therefore he has no ability to weigh in on the terrible spill out in the Gulf. He didn't contact the Chairman of the BP until 38 days after the spill. You know what his excuse was? "I didn't contact him because I knew he would tell me just what I wanted to hear."
SCOTT - You're absolutely right! You know what else, not only is it him, it's everybody around him---the lowest amount of private sector experience of any administration in modern history. I mean they have nobody that has done a darn thing around this guy. Now, you said something that caught my attention: we've been afraid to say it---why has business in general---you see the US Chamber a little more forceful now...there's this round table. Why are you afraid to say what you believe is the truth about what they mean for businesses and the economy in this country?
FRAN - I think that he has been getting a free pass. He's our first black president. He's an attractive guy. He's a great speaker, we wanted him to work but he hasn't. We didn't look at the signs; the signs are very clear. This young man does not have any background, what he does (is) he reads the teleprompter. You're right, he has people around him who come from the progressive side of the Democratic party. Which means they think that they're smart and that we're dumb.
SCOTT - Bunch of academics, I mean everything's in theory. Theory is amazing. If I said I were to arrange a meeting with Fran Tarkenton and President Barack Obama with global office doors shut, what do you say to him?
FRAN - I would say to him, he needs to involve business people in his inner circle, he needs to go out and cut taxes, he needs to go out and promote entrepreneurship-building and take these barriers that we have as small business people that makes it more difficult for us---not only too much taxing but we have regulations upon regulations which makes it more difficult. But our problem is really this: at the end of the day you talk to anybody on the inside of Washington---Democrats or Republicans---this guy is a socialist. This guy is left of left. That's just what he believes, he does not believe in what we are and what has built this country. He is never going to be a promoter of business. He wants to redistribute the wealth.
SCOTT - If he was in that meeting with you he would tell you, "Wait a minute Fran, I'm pro-business. I got Bill Clinton running around saying, "No, no, no he's pro-business." When he came up with that talking point what would you say?
FRAN - You are what you do, not what you say. Your words ring hollow to me because what you're doing is not pro-business, it's not pro-job growth. It is bigger government. The government harm with people spin ourselves into oblivion. The spending that he has got us in. We will be in the same state of Greece, of Spain, of Russia. Big government has never worked.
SCOTT - Amazing! I saw you with Neil Cavuto the other day, and right after that was a buddy of mine, Steven Moore from the Wall Street Journal, I don't know if you stuck around long enough with your ear piece in, enough to hear what he said. You made some similar comments, but I'm in full agreement with Steven Moore from the Wall Street Journal: "Fran Tarkington for President." Are you up for that?
FRAN - No, I am not up for that, but I tell you what, the strength of our country has always been in the people and now the people have to get out and we have to be heard. It's a simple thing. Right now there is twice as much cash in businesses as there was a year ago today. We understand.
SCOTT - Obama would call you greedy for that. He would say, "See, bunch of greedy businesses hoarding their cash."
FRAN - Yeah were hoarding our cash, here's what he's promised us: higher taxes, more regulations. Health care costs have already gone up, making it harder for businesses. So we understand something that he doesn't: you cannot spend more than you make. So we have already adapted, we are being more efficient spending the money. We are doing more with less because that is the American culture. That we understand you cannot go and spend money that you don't have. The state of California is bankrupt and let me say this: Minnesota, Wisconsin are broke because they spent more than they had.
SCOTT - Government should try it on for size; you know, just tighten the belt. That's what lit the match in my view of this Tea Party movement. I call it a sleeping giant of the American people that have been awakened, that have said "enough already." I agree with you. We will be fine because of the American people and because of good folks and entrepreneurship and worrying about the mouths we gotta feed, the families---that's what makes this country great and we will be fine because of it. Fran what a pleasure this was. Can we do this on a more regular basis my man?
FRAN - Will do, whenever you like.
SCOTT - I really, really, enjoyed it. All the best to you take care.
FRAN - Thank you.
Oh, the anti-intellectualism is rather funny coming from someone who made his money in software.
Quote from: nathanm on August 02, 2010, 10:23:30 AM
Hey, if you want to trade anecdotes, my clients are spending money like gangbusters. Housing, Distribution, Hospitality, and so on. Even the attorneys have taken on new partners lately and are buying more stuff. When I ask them about their taxes going up, they roll their eyes and ask me if I thought they also refused to make money in the 90s. Seriously.
This whole "business is afraid to expand" is a canard being pushed by people trying to score political points. The reality is that where money isn't being spent it's due to a lack of demand, not some nebulous thing that might happen in the future. Very much like the mythical bond vigilantes, actually.
People don't refuse to start, expand, or continue in a business because they're scared.
Have you ever heard of a serious down-turn for attorneys, Nathan?
It's hardly a canard when you work in a business directly impacted by regulation. Engineers, salespeople, and people who run small businesses have no political points to gain by espousing such views or hording cash.
Quote from: we vs us on August 02, 2010, 10:39:24 AM
I think this is a transcript of the radio interview with Tarkington. It's front page news on www.winbackwashington.com. Gaspar, correct me if I'm wrong.
That wasn't it, but it looks like he's playing from the same script. He must be on a book tour or something.
Quote from: Townsend on July 29, 2010, 04:29:18 PM
Blueberries, I like 'em.
Trickle down economics, I like 'em.
WARNING: Evil conservative website:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/02/remember-when-people-laughed-at-trickle-down-economics/
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2010, 10:43:48 AM
Have you ever heard of a serious down-turn for attorneys, Nathan?
It's hardly a canard when you work in a business directly impacted by regulation. Engineers, salespeople, and people who run small businesses have no political points to gain by espousing such views or hording cash.
Uh, sure they have political points to gain. Everybody prefers less red tape and lower taxes. Some just realize that taxes pay for nice things. Either way, they made money back when most everything was under much more stringent regulation than will even be the case after the reregulation-lite we seem to be having, so I think most folks will be fine.
And yeah, I have. The recession put a big dent in many areas of practice. However, those who were already heavy into bankruptcy and collections have been doing very well for obvious reasons.
Either way, part of what makes a successful business successful is the ability of the organization to adapt quickly to changing situations. If a business fails because of any regulation we're likely to see out of the business wing of the Democratic Party (which pretty much is the Party), it was weak in the first place.
Quote from: nathanm on August 02, 2010, 11:15:02 AM
Either way, part of what makes a successful business successful is the ability of the organization to adapt quickly to changing situations. If a business fails because of any regulation we're likely to see out of the business wing of the Democratic Party (which pretty much is the Party), it was weak in the first place.
I'll agree that flexibility is an important asset to a business, but in the real business world, you can be as flexible as you like and still not be able to keep up with new regulations.
You won't get far passing that pap off to the former owner of a metal finishing (i.e. metal plating) business who could not afford the kind of equipment it took to keep up with ever-tightening environmental regs. How about pet subisidy programs and food safety legislation from the Democrats which have been more friendly to large corporate farm conglomerates while smaller farmers have been squeezed out of existence?
What is interesting about tighter environmental and safety regs which are the usual domain of Democrats, is they serve to benefit the larger corporate interests that they espouse as being "evil" due to smaller businesses being unable to afford to keep up with new regs either by not having cash on hand, the necessary credit available, or simply being sick of having the government up their arse. Oh wait, the smaller business failed because they had an unsound business model when the government regulated them out of existence.
Until you've worked around the manufacturing and producing end of our economy extensively, you will probably never be able to fully appreciate what effects government regulation has on commerce. It can be good and it can be bad. Right now there's simply too much of a questionable to negative environment which is making companies horde cash and refuse to hire, expand, or spend.
I'm hearing, seeing, and living first-hand what is causing a lingering sluggish economy. You guys keep wondering why the economy is still limping along and wondering what it's going to take to pull it out, but when it's explained to you by people who are actually working in areas still heavily impacted by the sluggish economy, it's like you don't want to hear the truth. It's all canards to you people.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2010, 10:43:48 AM
Have you ever heard of a serious down-turn for attorneys, Nathan?
Business is a boomin for lawyers in this state. The bar journal is packed with ads about job openings.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 02, 2010, 11:43:01 AM
I'm hearing, seeing, and living first-hand what is causing a lingering sluggish economy. You guys keep wondering why the economy is still limping along and wondering what it's going to take to pull it out, but when it's explained to you by people who are actually working in areas still heavily impacted by the sluggish economy, it's like you don't want to hear the truth. It's all canards to you people.
We have different experiences. You seem no more interested in hearing the truth from my perspective than you claim I am in hearing yours.
I can't feel a great deal of sympathy for people being forced to not make a gigantic mess when they produce things. Clean drinking water matters more to me than somebody not being able to afford to properly contain their waste. If the business can't make money without polluting, it wasn't much of a business to begin with.
I do agree 100% on the farm subsidy (not food safety) issue, though.
Quote from: nathanm on August 02, 2010, 09:27:28 AM
Maybe people making $20,000 a year are also middle class?
I hope you are being sarcastic. Full time minimum wage ($7.25/hr) is approximately $15,000/yr.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 02, 2010, 12:14:03 PM
I hope you are being sarcastic. Full time minimum wage ($7.25/hr) is approximately $15,000/yr.
My point was that a person making $20,000 a year is as much "middle class" as a person making $180,000 a year. As in, they are not.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 02, 2010, 12:14:03 PM
I hope you are being sarcastic. Full time minimum wage ($7.25/hr) is approximately $15,000/yr.
Do people on minimum wage want to make more?
One thing usually neglected is to say whether the income defining "rich" is married filing jointly or otherwise. Look at filing single. That $250,000 most often becomes $125,000 which is within the realm of many single professionals.
QuoteWhat is interesting about tighter environmental and safety regs which are the usual domain of Democrats, is they serve to benefit the larger corporate interests that they espouse as being "evil" due to smaller businesses being unable to afford to keep up with new regs either by not having cash on hand, the necessary credit available, or simply being sick of having the government up their arse. Oh wait, the smaller business failed because they had an unsound business model when the government regulated them out of existence.
Until you've worked around the manufacturing and producing end of our economy extensively, you will probably never be able to fully appreciate what effects government regulation has on commerce. It can be good and it can be bad. Right now there's simply too much of a questionable to negative environment which is making companies horde cash and refuse to hire, expand, or spend.
So, when people are put out of jobs because they "didn't go to the right school" or choose the "right" career, well that's just too bad, they should have thought it out better. According to the Murdoch Radio Script. But when a small business owner is too much into his Sea-Doo, bass boat, house on the lake, and the brand new pickup truck, it's the governments fault he didn't plan a little bit ahead to take into account regulations?? Yeah, that makes sense.
As if there are not YEARS of discussion and advance notification for any significant regulation...
Until you have worked around the manufacturing and producing end of our economy extensively, you probably wouldn't realize how the regulation end of it works.
As for business not investing, well, I bet Murphy company would be surprised to hear that bag-o-crap, since they just got done doing a bunch of it here lately. Also, there is a Fortune 100 company in the state that has invested a bucket of cash and has hired several hundred this year - just in Oklahoma - just to try keep up with demand. And many times that nationwide, and worldwide. And that hasn't been enough. More to come.
Tulsa certainly is dead right now. AAON seems to be looking for a couple of software types. Monster shows 805 openings today, but who knows what those are. Definitely not enough!
One big problem with a lot of Tulsa area companies is similar to a situation expressed in the Compadre's thread - not enough "barbie doll" people with the qualifications they want to hire - it put one poster off his appetite. Apparently all the unemployed out there are ugly old fat farts like me. Even if, as is so often the case, they are eminently qualified. We can't have them roaming around a company "uglying" it up...
Try being a highly trained technical type - an engineer - with degree(s), continuous training to stay current (which IS required), and become 50 years old. See what happens.
Corporate America will be hounding the Fed to increase the H1-B visas since they "can't find" qualified people for $15,000 per year.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 08, 2010, 08:42:24 AM
So, when people are put out of jobs because they "didn't go to the right school" or choose the "right" career, well that's just too bad, they should have thought it out better. According to the Murdoch Radio Script. But when a small business owner is too much into his Sea-Doo, bass boat, house on the lake, and the brand new pickup truck, it's the governments fault he didn't plan a little bit ahead to take into account regulations?? Yeah, that makes sense.
As if there are not YEARS of discussion and advance notification for any significant regulation...
Until you have worked around the manufacturing and producing end of our economy extensively, you probably wouldn't realize how the regulation end of it works.
As for business not investing, well, I bet Murphy company would be surprised to hear that bag-o-crap, since they just got done doing a bunch of it here lately. Also, there is a Fortune 100 company in the state that has invested a bucket of cash and has hired several hundred this year - just in Oklahoma - just to try keep up with demand. And many times that nationwide, and worldwide. And that hasn't been enough. More to come.
Tulsa certainly is dead right now. AAON seems to be looking for a couple of software types. Monster shows 805 openings today, but who knows what those are. Definitely not enough!
One big problem with a lot of Tulsa area companies is similar to a situation expressed in the Compadre's thread - not enough "barbie doll" people with the qualifications they want to hire - it put one poster off his appetite. Apparently all the unemployed out there are ugly old fat farts like me. Even if, as is so often the case, they are eminently qualified. We can't have them roaming around a company "uglying" it up...
Try being a highly trained technical type - an engineer - with degree(s), continuous training to stay current (which IS required), and become 50 years old. See what happens.
Corporate America will be hounding the Fed to increase the H1-B visas since they "can't find" qualified people for $15,000 per year.
I just read this five times and still can't figure out what you said. The only cogent point I got was what you said about there being years of discussion and advance notification. Tell that to painting and remodeling contractors who apparently were not given adequate time to be in compliance with new training and containment regs which were placed on them in April.
He got Murdoch in there again though.
+1
Basically he's lost somewhere in his brain.
You gotta be kidding.
Let's break it down so MurdochLand residents can enjoy, too.
Referenced to first paragraph in quote;
The official RWRE playbook has gone on for years about poor people are just victims of their own poor choices. Didn't go to the right school. Didn't develop the right contacts. No matter what the economy or corporate America was doing around them, they are responsible for being poor because they did something stupid.
So now, when some small business owner is too much into his Sea-Doo, bass boat, house on the lake, and the brand new pickup truck, it's the governments fault he didn't plan a little bit ahead to take into account regulations. According to the script.
Referenced to second paragraph;
Self explanatory. Read it again without the RWRE magic spectacles and I bet it will be clear.
Then there were some examples of actual business activity. Even though they are still laying off people, Murphy did make an investment recently (was it misguided? Who knows - they seem to be struggling for direction. One of those second/third generational inheritance things that has been discussed around here.)
There are signs of activity all around. Even if it isn't exactly what one would like, there are jobs opening up. (Example; I am not interested in changing for anything I see now.)
Those new proposed painting regs have been around for at least 3 years. That is how long I have heard about them and I am not even in the industry. You just made one of my points exactly!
But you understood. And I bet most readers also will. Diversion is the number one tactic of the playbook.
Okay, just making sure. Nope, nothing which makes sense in there.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 09, 2010, 01:11:03 PM
Okay, just making sure. Nope, nothing which makes sense in there.
Do you have the "playbook?" I seem to have left mine at home.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 09, 2010, 11:44:55 AM
Tell that to painting and remodeling contractors who apparently were not given adequate time to be in compliance with new training and containment regs which were placed on them in April.
Contractors have known about these regulations since at least May 2008 (I did a very quick Google search and found an article from then, I didn't take too much more time looking for the exact date the legislation was passed). If nearly 2 years isn't enough, what should that number have been?
EDIT: The rule was passed on April 22, 2008, they were given two years to get training, and have even been given an extension until later this year. http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/training/rrp/rrp.cfm
Quote from: TURobY on August 09, 2010, 01:40:48 PM
Contractors have known about these regulations since at least May 2008 (I did a very quick Google search and found an article from then, I didn't take too much more time looking for the exact date the legislation was passed). If nearly 2 years isn't enough, what should that number have been?
EDIT: The rule was passed on April 22, 2008, they were given two years to get training, and have even been given an extension until later this year. http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/training/rrp/rrp.cfm
You don't understand the intricacies of the problem. Unfortunately, as is usually the case, government involvement leads to complex systems that only function to make things difficult.
The law requires that businesses be "certified" by a "certified" training organization. The trainer must be certified (by taking a half dozen EPA courses) and class sizes cannot exceed 25 persons as mandated by the EPA/DEQ.
Currently, there are not enough trainers to satisfy the tens of thousands of workers in Oklahoma alone. Only a couple in the area last I heard (133 in the whole country). The classes available in Oklahoma are in OKC and are a full day. They cost $195 per worker.
It is not only construction that is affected. Painters, landlords, decorators, carpet installers, locksmiths, window and door companies, garage door repair companies, roofers, plumbers, and many more. Basically anyone who disturbs the finishes on older homes is required to pay the government and get the certification.
Additionally, the moment a company performs work on your old lead painted home, they become liable for any exposure you or your children have after that point. So if you have a window replaced, and someone in your family acquires lead poisoning 5 years later, you can sue the contractor that installed the window. Additionally if the EPA finds that a contractor did not perform the lead remediation correctly the fine is as high as $32,500 per day. The fine for doing work uncertified is $65,000 (this can be something as simple as hanging a picture on the wall, or installing a new lock). :o
The law, and the certification acknowledges "risk of exposure" caused by a contractor working on your home. So basically, the government has made it very unattractive for all kinds of businesses to engage in preservation or remodeling of older structures. Various home builders groups across the country have estimated that this will increase the cost of working on older homes by around 40%.
Don't worry, a select few companies will emerge as lead-certified contractors. You will be able to find them in your Yellow pages. They will offset the liability by charging you as much as they want. :o
Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as licenses or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action. – Ayn Rand
Quote from: Gaspar on August 09, 2010, 02:39:37 PM
The law requires that businesses be "certified" by a "certified" training organization. The trainer must be certified (by taking a half dozen EPA courses) and class sizes cannot exceed 25 persons as mandated by the EPA/DEQ.
Currently, there are not enough trainers to satisfy the tens of thousands of workers in Oklahoma alone. Only a couple in the area last I heard (133 in the whole country). The classes available in Oklahoma are in OKC and are a full day. They cost $195 per worker.
There are currently 4 training programs in the state of Oklahoma (2 in OKC, 1 in Tulsa, and 1 in Stillwater) and two nearby in Springfield and Wichita.
Quote
The fine for doing work uncertified is $65,000 (this can be something as simple as hanging a picture on the wall, or installing a new lock). :o
Are you sure on that parenthetical statement? The law applies only if the project disturbs more than six square feet of paint in the area. If you hire someone to hang a picture on your wall or install a new lock, and they need to make a hole 6 square feet large, you should probably have gone with a different contractor in the first place.
Quote from: TURobY on August 09, 2010, 03:24:49 PM
There are currently 4 training programs in the state of Oklahoma (2 in OKC, 1 in Tulsa, and 1 in Stillwater) and two nearby in Springfield and Wichita.
Are you sure on that parenthetical statement? The law applies only if the project disturbs more than six square feet of paint in the area. If you hire someone to hang a picture on your wall or install a new lock, and they need to make a hole 6 square feet large, you should probably have gone with a different contractor in the first place.
The government was far more aquiescent in postponing the digital TV conversion until they could make sure everyone had converters than they were with this law. ::)
They gave the enactment of the "lead law" a three week extension.
A good friend of mine has undergone certification to become an instructor and he asserts there wasn't anywhere close to enough time nor sufficient communication to A) help contractors discern if they needed the certification and B) get all those who would fall under the edict of this rule time to comply.
I believe much of the backlog problem is the result of miscommunication over who needed to be certified under the act.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 09, 2010, 03:29:47 PM
They gave the enactment of the "lead law" a three week extension.
A good friend of mine has undergone certification to become an instructor and he asserts there wasn't anywhere close to enough time nor sufficient communication to A) help contractors discern if they needed the certification and B) get all those who would fall under the edict of this rule time to comply.
I believe much of the backlog problem is the result of miscommunication over who needed to be certified under the act.
They further extended the deadline to become certified to December a couple of months back.
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrp-ques-answer.pdf
"EPA is providing additional time for renovation firms and workers to obtain the necessary training and certifications before enforcement of the firm certification and individual renovator requirements begins.
•Renovation Firms. Until October 1, 2010, EPA will not take enforcement action for violations of the RRP rule's firm certification requirement.
•Individual Renovators. EPA will not enforce against individual renovation workers for failure to be trained if the person has applied to enroll in, or has enrolled in, by not later than September 30, 2010, a certified renovator class to train contractors in practices necessary for compliance with the final rules. Individual renovators must complete the training by December 31, 2010. Renovators who have not been able to complete the training requirements are advised to review EPA's model training materials available at www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/training.htm. Additional information on lead-safe work practices can be found at www.epa.gov/lead or obtained from the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).".
Quote from: TURobY on August 09, 2010, 03:43:06 PM
They further extended the deadline to become certified to December a couple of months back.
http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/rrp-ques-answer.pdf
"EPA is providing additional time for renovation firms and workers to obtain the necessary training and certifications before enforcement of the firm certification and individual renovator requirements begins.
•Renovation Firms. Until October 1, 2010, EPA will not take enforcement action for violations of the RRP rule's firm certification requirement.
•Individual Renovators. EPA will not enforce against individual renovation workers for failure to be trained if the person has applied to enroll in, or has enrolled in, by not later than September 30, 2010, a certified renovator class to train contractors in practices necessary for compliance with the final rules. Individual renovators must complete the training by December 31, 2010. Renovators who have not been able to complete the training requirements are advised to review EPA's model training materials available at www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/training.htm. Additional information on lead-safe work practices can be found at www.epa.gov/lead or obtained from the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).".
Nice of them to tell me. 8)
Still doesn't change the fact that many contractors can't make even the new deadlines and I don't see how it changes my original comment that contractors weren't given enough time to comply by the original deadline in April.
The whole gist of the line of commentary started when it was noted that government has handed down many regs over the years which have run small businesses out of business because they could not afford the cost of compliance. Either they could not afford to or simply did not wish to be micro-managed by faceless bureaucrats.
I work in commercial construction management and we have stayed busy through the downturn. The work has shifted though to numerous smaller projects like hospital remodels and schools instead of several larger commercial projects. Work has picked up in 2010 compared to 2009 which gives me hope that we are in fact in a recovery, albeit a slow one. If energy prices rise there will be added front office jobs in Tulsa (also Houston, Dallas, OKC and Denver) and more jobs in rural areas where they are drilling. It was recently released that exports increased for Tulsa, and that we ranked pretty high for mid-sized cities in the number of export products actually manufactured here. If that keeps up there will be added jobs there. Same for aerospace which has seen an uptick as well.
I'm a Democrat but don't support rolling back the Bush tax cuts and increasing the capital gains tax, at least not right now. Let the economy continue to recover on its own and we'll deal the stimulus debt later. Trying to plug the hole too fast will not help things and could cause another downturn. I'm just hoping we can stave off inflation and keep interest rates low, that is also key to having a full recovery.
It wasn't the time or extension or no extension. It WAS that they did not act.
And of course I wouldn't expect it to be understood. That is obvious.
Interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal today. Even THEY are beginning to get a glimmer. Of course, they have always known, but now too many people are "joining the club". Instead of 0.1% wealthy, we are talking 2% to 5%.
Bad for the old rich. So when the 5% that spend 38% of the money in this economy slow down - look out, bad news!! It just means that all that woefully lamented spending by Obama on his vacations is actually doing good for the rest of us, if not the 2%'ers or the 5%'ers.
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/110258/us-economy-is-increasingly-tied-to-the-rich
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 09, 2010, 04:45:44 PM
It wasn't the time or extension or no extension. It WAS that they did not act.
And of course I wouldn't expect it to be understood. That is obvious.
Interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal today. Even THEY are beginning to get a glimmer. Of course, they have always known, but now too many people are "joining the club". Instead of 0.1% wealthy, we are talking 2% to 5%.
Bad for the old rich. So when the 5% that spend 38% of the money in this economy slow down - look out, bad news!! It just means that all that woefully lamented spending by Obama on his vacations is actually doing good for the rest of us, if not the 2%'ers or the 5%'ers.
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/110258/us-economy-is-increasingly-tied-to-the-rich
Hey, I think it's good that the President and his family keeps taking lavish vacations. Watching them "tour" on TV offers hope to the people. It gives us a sense that everything is going to be alright. Michelle's trip to Spain cost us $400,000, but that's nothing compared to the hope it gave the American public. My daughter saw her on TV last week and asked if she was a princess.
In hard times it's important that our leaders pose a semblance of normalcy. The President is simply taking it a step further. Sure, the massive machine necessary for transporting and safeguarding the Obamas is expensive, but each time he travels he is creating or saving jobs in hotels, spas and golf courses around the world. The Air Force One 747 costs between $50,000 and $60,000 an hour to operate, but each time it touches down in a new exotic location, hundreds of peasants spring into action securing passage, preparing meals, and polishing golf carts. These are jobs. These are the jobs that Joe Biden was talking about. This is stimulus.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 10, 2010, 07:41:36 AM
Hey, I think it's good that the President and his family keeps taking lavish vacations. Watching them "tour" on TV offers hope to the people. It gives us a sense that everything is going to be alright. Michelle's trip to Spain cost us $400,000, but that's nothing compared to the hope it gave the American public. My daughter saw her on TV last week and asked if she was a princess.
In hard times it's important that our leaders pose a semblance of normalcy. The President is simply taking it a step further. Sure, the massive machine necessary for transporting and safeguarding the Obamas is expensive, but each time he travels he is creating or saving jobs in hotels, spas and golf courses around the world. The Air Force One 747 costs between $50,000 and $60,000 an hour to operate, but each time it touches down in a new exotic location, hundreds of peasants spring into action securing passage, preparing meals, and polishing golf carts. These are jobs. These are the jobs that Joe Biden was talking about. This is stimulus.
This is a common complaint for every presidency. How many trips is too many? If they go on some trip, is it too expensive? If they don't go, why didn't they care enough?
The vacations? Please. How many does each exec take while in office?
How much does it cost us to fly the legislative branch all over Hell and back?
The Spain vacation was just a simple thing for the news/entertainment shows to grab hold of and work us into a frenzy.
As far as cost and stupidity though...small potatoes.
Quote from: Townsend on August 10, 2010, 08:20:10 AM
This is a common complaint for every presidency. How many trips is too many? If they go on some trip, is it too expensive? If they don't go, why didn't they care enough?
The vacations? Please. How many does each exec take while in office?
How much does it cost us to fly the legislative branch all over Hell and back?
The Spain vacation was just a simple thing for the news/entertainment shows to grab hold of and work us into a frenzy.
As far as cost and stupidity though...small potatoes.
I agree. I think it's great. After Texas this week, they are going to hit Martha's Vineyard for 10 days. Two golf games scheduled at Mink Meadows and Island Cove. The job of President is the roughest I can imagine. I think they deserve a break.
I personally love golf. Wish I got more chances to play. My dad is retired and plays about 50 rounds a year. . .Slightly more than the President.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 10, 2010, 08:28:24 AM
I agree. I think it's great.
Well super. It's nice to see such a positive outlook on everything for you.
I will wait right up to the point where Obama has taken OVER 3 years of vacation out of 8. At that point, I will be bitching about him as much as Bush II.
That is over 1.5 years of vacation out of 4 years of his Presidency. In the not too distant future, we will reach the point where it will be physically impossible for Obama to get the full 1.5 years that Bush did out of 4. Will have to see if there is another 4, but at the pace he is going, there is no way to match Bush.
37% of the time being on vacation!! What a wonderful life that would be!!
In this day and age, you can run the country from anywhere. I doubt President Obama goes an hour or two without being advised of some crisis or issue. It's a hard job and probably the most stressful on the face of the planet. Well, no, I take that back, I'd say a soldier hunkered down with bullets flying over his or her head is probably the most stressful, but I digress. At any rate, I think we can all agree that POTUS would be a difficult job.
This is my problem with all the lavish vacations: in times where spending is at record levels, ostensibly from the fiscal mis-management of the previous administration, what sort of example is the current President setting? Remember, President Bush was too aloof, spent too much time at his ranch and mismanaged the economy to the depths it's become so that we must spend billions in stimulus to bring it back from the brink.
I honestly have not seen nor heard anything out of President Obama which indicates that he truly has a grasp of what the average American is up against in terms of their concerns for keeping or finding a job and how we will ever pay down this debt. "This administration will not rest" rings hollow when the appearance is that the administration is always off to it's next great globe-trotting adventure.
Do I expect him to stay holed up in the White House 24/7 until things improve for everyone. No I don't, but I think galavanting about like a celebrity at this point in time is a huge PR mistake unless he's only interested in being a one term President. I have a feeling this will be used against him in the '12 election.
Where do trillion $$ deficits come from anyhow? $500K here, $750K there, $1mm over there.... It's all relevant. It bothers me when people say: "It's only a billion dollars"
Just a gut feel is telling me that IF he does run again (and I think he might not), he definitely is a one-termer. I would like to see John McCain run again. I would vote for him. Even if he did the "Stupid" again...you know who...Sarah. Hopefully he learned from that experience and would not bow to the pressure. Perhaps Joe Lieberman for VP?
As you suspect, Obama has no clue. He is in way over his head, as was George. George just got drunk and gave massages to foreign heads of state to cope. Obama takes trips. Who is to say which is better/worse?
The debt will never be paid down. A truly epic collapse with occur first.
Here is a very interesting discussion about our persistent unemployment this time around. Part of the problem goes to our headlong rush to cheapen labor in this country (my interpretation) - partly by shipping jobs overseas. Partly by moving from Detroit to Tennessee. Unintended consequences. The jobs just don't exist anymore (remember the buggy whip makers?), and are not likely to come back any time soon. The chickens are not 'coming home to roost', they are already here!
Interesting note, that even though RWRE is spewing about how unemployment is keeping people on the dole rather than looking for work, that is only about 1% of the situation, according to a SERIOUS analysis of the situation. It is a pleasant surprise to see the Wall Street Journal to again be engaged in a serious discussion of reality! (Did Rupert look away this week??)
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110277/some-firms-struggle-to-hire-despite-high-unemployment
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 11, 2010, 09:26:30 AM
As you suspect, Obama has no clue. He is in way over his head, as was George. George just got drunk and gave massages to foreign heads of state to cope. Obama takes trips. Who is to say which is better/worse?
The debt will never be paid down. A truly epic collapse with occur first.
You have an excellent point. We are trying to shore up a collapsed bubble by pumping more air into it. Markets need to fail sometimes. Companies need to go out of business. The voids are quickly filled by new business. It is simply part of the cyclical health of an enterprise system.
If the government had not intervened in the first place (Fanny & Freddy) in an effort to buy votes, the destructive seeds would not have sprouted.
By electing a leader with no leadership skills or economic experience, we set ourselves up for disaster. We traded "agenda" for executive ability, and the deliverables were simply "agenda items" and more debt. Stimulus was squandered and it's meaning forever redefined.
We are past the point where we can control this thing. We can print money like mad, and soften the impact, but unless private industry gets some indication that more poor decision making is not on the horizon, our path is set.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 11, 2010, 09:50:06 AM
You have an excellent point. We are trying to shore up a collapsed bubble by pumping more air into it. Markets need to fail sometimes. Companies need to go out of business. The voids are quickly filled by new business. It is simply part of the cyclical health of an enterprise system.
If the government had not intervened in the first place (Fanny & Freddy) in an effort to buy votes, the destructive seeds would not have sprouted.
By electing a leader with no leadership skills or economic experience, we set ourselves up for disaster. We traded "agenda" for executive ability, and the deliverables were simply "agenda items" and more debt. Stimulus was squandered and it's meaning forever redefined.
We are past the point where we can control this thing. We can print money like mad, and soften the impact, but unless private industry gets some indication that more poor decision making is not on the horizon, our path is set.
Some popular thought seems to blame the actions President Bush used to stem the slowdown or recession of '01 ultimately with the mess we are in now. If he would have not passed the tax cuts and taken other measures and had a cataclysm at that point, do you think it might have been a softer crash than the what we've experienced over the last two years? If we would have reined in the banks, passed far tougher restrictions on home lending, and gotten oversight on default swaps at that time, I've wondered what shape we would be in now. No one wanted to put the brakes on since we had seen great growth over the previous 7-8 years, but it might not have been a bad idea with the hindsight we have now.
Your graphic of the day, courtesy of the Economist: (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7933596&story_id=16767222)
(http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2010/32/NA/201032NAC465.gif)
"THE quarterly results season that is drawing to a close has revealed that corporate profits are back within a whisker of the all-time highs achieved before the downturn in late 2008. American profits are already back to 11% of GDP. Corporate America is reaping the rewards from cutting costs, especially in capital investment and labour, through an unpleasant mix of redundancies, reduced hours and lower pay. The great squeeze cannot go on forever, of course, but it shows no sign of slackening. Figures released on Friday August 6th show the unemployment rate remained steady at 9.5% in July, but non-farm payroll employment fell by 131,000, some 65,000 more than expected. The great decoupling of profits from jobs could last for a long time."
So much for the largesse trickling down.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2010, 10:02:31 AM
Some popular thought seems to blame the actions President Bush used to stem the slowdown or recession of '01 ultimately with the mess we are in now. If he would have not passed the tax cuts and taken other measures and had a cataclysm at that point, do you think it might have been a softer crash than the what we've experienced over the last two years? If we would have reined in the banks, passed far tougher restrictions on home lending, and gotten oversight on default swaps at that time, I've wondered what shape we would be in now. No one wanted to put the brakes on since we had seen great growth over the previous 7-8 years, but it might not have been a bad idea with the hindsight we have now.
Absolutely! On all counts.
Bush should have been more vocal in his alarm at the Freddy/Fanny problem. There were in excess of 17 addresses to congress on the eminent failure of the system that went unheeded. He should have taken it directly to the American People. It would have made him unpopular, but would have shed some light causing the roaches to scatter.
At the time I was working in the development field and everyone knew a disaster was pending. You can't continue to sell $300,000 homes with nothing down to people who don't qualify. When my wife and I purchased our last home we "qualified" $400,000. I had to explain to my wife that just because the bank says you qualify doesn't mean that's reality. We purchased at $188,000, but many of our friends around the country went for the gold.
Our generation has not had to learn the lessons of the past. Most of us are too young to have much connection to the disasters of the Carter years, and we've skated since Reagan policies shot economic growth through the roof. I think it may be good that we are learning this lesson now.
Quote from: we vs us on August 11, 2010, 10:14:49 AM
Your graphic of the day, courtesy of the Economist: (http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=7933596&story_id=16767222)
(http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2010/32/NA/201032NAC465.gif)
"THE quarterly results season that is drawing to a close has revealed that corporate profits are back within a whisker of the all-time highs achieved before the downturn in late 2008. American profits are already back to 11% of GDP. Corporate America is reaping the rewards from cutting costs, especially in capital investment and labour, through an unpleasant mix of redundancies, reduced hours and lower pay. The great squeeze cannot go on forever, of course, but it shows no sign of slackening. Figures released on Friday August 6th show the unemployment rate remained steady at 9.5% in July, but non-farm payroll employment fell by 131,000, some 65,000 more than expected. The great decoupling of profits from jobs could last for a long time."
So much for the largesse trickling down.
No real surprise. The workforce has been thinned out to sustainable levels.
Sounds as if companies are making profits at reduced sales and production levels via cost-cutting measures. If they hired more people without an increase in sales, chances are their profits would fall. Business 101 stuff here.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2010, 10:50:49 AM
No real surprise. The workforce has been thinned out to sustainable levels.
I would strongly disagree that the workforce is a sustainable levels. Most workers that I've spoken with agree that the workforce was cut to a skeleton crew and that most workers are carrying the load of multiple people. Therefore, productivity output per worker increased and allowed those cost-cutting savings to emerge. However, most working people that I've talked to also agree that the number of workers versus productivity output is not sustainable. You are starting to see workplace burnout, and the nation's productivity output is going to be negatively affected very soon unless we start hiring more workers.
Quote from: TURobY on August 11, 2010, 11:07:44 AM
I would strongly disagree that the workforce is a sustainable levels. Most workers that I've spoken with agree that the workforce was cut to a skeleton crew and that most workers are carrying the load of multiple people. Therefore, productivity output per worker increased and allowed those cost-cutting savings to emerge. However, most working people that I've talked to also agree that the number of workers versus productivity output is not sustainable. You are starting to see workplace burnout, and the nation's productivity output is going to be negatively affected very soon unless we start hiring more workers.
I do know that where I work, in my department, back in 2007 we had a crew of eight. As of this day, we're down to five, and we're easily doing twice the work that we were doing in 2007. I know my workload has increased substantially.
Quote from: TURobY on August 11, 2010, 11:07:44 AM
I would strongly disagree that the workforce is a sustainable levels. Most workers that I've spoken with agree that the workforce was cut to a skeleton crew and that most workers are carrying the load of multiple people. Therefore, productivity output per worker increased and allowed those cost-cutting savings to emerge. However, most working people that I've talked to also agree that the number of workers versus productivity output is not sustainable. You are starting to see workplace burnout, and the nation's productivity output is going to be negatively affected very soon unless we start hiring more workers.
It's sustainable to maintain profit objectives and stay in business. Those that burn out and quit will be replaced by the pool of 9.5% who aren't working now. Those who have jobs right now should be expecting to work harder as it's not an ideal climate to be searching for a job right now, so workers will have to take less than their ideal working conditions in some cases. Truly good management will recognize when it's time to bring in more help to take some stress off the existing employees, if individuals and teams can't meet project or product delivery deadlines.
I know that sounds cold and callous, but let's assume that orders increase and therefore production increases. Based on an increase in work flow it's assumed that everyone would still maintain their existing pace and additional people are brought in to cover additional tasks or overflow. Still no guarantee that the pressure on each individual is lessened. I'm feeling the over-work burden somewhat right now, but I'm finding it preferable to having no work at all.
Quote from: Hoss on August 11, 2010, 11:24:52 AM
I do know that where I work, in my department, back in 2007 we had a crew of eight. As of this day, we're down to five, and we're easily doing twice the work that we were doing in 2007. I know my workload has increased substantially.
Do you feel like you were underworked then or overworked now, or just about right with the current workload?
No right or wrong answer, just curious
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2010, 11:27:25 AM
It's sustainable to maintain profit objectives and stay in business. Those that burn out and quit will be replaced by the pool of 9.5% who aren't working now. Those who have jobs right now should be expecting to work harder as it's not an ideal climate to be searching for a job right now, so workers will have to take less than their ideal working conditions in some cases. Truly good management will recognize when it's time to bring in more help to take some stress off the existing employees, if individuals and teams can't meet project or product delivery deadlines.
I know that sounds cold and callous, but let's assume that orders increase and therefore production increases. Based on an increase in work flow it's assumed that everyone would still maintain their existing pace and additional people are brought in to cover additional tasks or overflow. Still no guarantee that the pressure on each individual is lessened. I'm feeling the over-work burden somewhat right now, but I'm finding it preferable to having no work at all.
By and large I think you're correct, which is what I find so disturbing. Corporate profits are matching pre-recession levels, but with far lower employment. Hence the Economist's reference to the decoupling of profit and employment. Companies now need fewer workers to make the same amount of profit. While that will have to change at some point (again, per the Economist) when companies want to increase their profit, it indicates that certain levels of employment may not be necessary to guarantee an increase in revenue. Which in turn means that there's a far less compelling reason to treat companies with kid gloves, since the kid gloves don't lead directly to jobs.
Quote from: we vs us on August 11, 2010, 11:32:36 AM
By and large I think you're correct, which is what I find so disturbing. Corporate profits are matching pre-recession levels, but with far lower employment. Hence the Economist's reference to the decoupling of profit and employment. And the death of the trickle down theory.
I don't think it's the death of the trickle down theory, I think what is happening is companies are refusing to hire
in advance of increased sales. Given the shock the economy has gone through in the last two years, the fact that profits are returning and more companies are not closing down is a victory. Certainly I'd prefer if they were hiring and U/E was back around 5% but there'd be less hope about the future of employment prospects if the companies had disappeared alltogether.
Not many are willing to mortgage the future not knowing when or if sales will increase. We could hire more pipe-fitters and welders right now for a large contract I might win for my company, but it will make a whole lot more sense once I've got some signatures, a purchase order, and letter of credit in hand.
Individuals and corporations have learned some hard lessons about borrowing against future earnings and profits the last two years by being put into situations they never thought they would see. I really do think we are seeing a more austere society emerging from the ashes of this collapse. I hope I'm wrong, but what if we simply have to accept 9.5% as the new going rate of unemployment?
USA Today must be reading this thread. . .
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2010-08-11-housing11_cv_N.htm
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2010, 11:31:26 AM
Do you feel like you were underworked then or overworked now, or just about right with the current workload?
No right or wrong answer, just curious
I felt a little like I was overworked then, so you can imagine how I feel now...but, I am an SME on a number of things where I work (that's 'subject matter expert') so I can be 'in demand' quite often. My friends/family say it's 'job security'. Hogwash. There is nothing that makes your job secure these days...
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2010, 11:44:35 AM
I don't think it's the death of the trickle down theory, I think what is happening is companies are refusing to hire in advance of increased sales. Given the shock the economy has gone through in the last two years, the fact that profits are returning and more companies are not closing down is a victory. Certainly I'd prefer if they were hiring and U/E was back around 5% but there'd be less hope about the future of employment prospects if the companies had disappeared alltogether.
Not many are willing to mortgage the future not knowing when or if sales will increase. We could hire more pipe-fitters and welders right now for a large contract I might win for my company, but it will make a whole lot more sense once I've got some signatures, a purchase order, and letter of credit in hand.
Individuals and corporations have learned some hard lessons about borrowing against future earnings and profits the last two years by being put into situations they never thought they would see. I really do think we are seeing a more austere society emerging from the ashes of this collapse. I hope I'm wrong, but what if we simply have to accept 9.5% as the new going rate of unemployment?
Interesting. In the past I'd read you as talking about personal austerity, but it sounds like you're talking about corporate austerity, or business austerity. That's definitely a horse of a different color, especially if austerity means collateral damage of a 10% unemployment rate. If that's the new normal . . . well, welcome to your new welfare state.
And it might as well be the death of trickle down. If we grant government money (tax breaks, subsidies, preferential treatment) to the rich and to corporations, in return we should receive employment, right? That generosity should trickle down to the rest of us in the form of jobs and increased wages, wealth in general. I always thought that the was the trickle down "bargain."
If corporate America can guarantee steady profits without trickling down any of its wealth to the rest of us, then I'd say the theory is pretty much toast.
Quote from: we vs us on August 11, 2010, 02:16:21 PM
Interesting. In the past I'd read you as talking about personal austerity, but it sounds like you're talking about corporate austerity, or business austerity. That's definitely a horse of a different color, especially if austerity means collateral damage of a 10% unemployment rate. If that's the new normal . . . well, welcome to your new welfare state.
And it might as well be the death of trickle down. If we grant government money (tax breaks, subsidies, preferential treatment) to the rich and to corporations, in return we should receive employment, right? That generosity should trickle down to the rest of us in the form of jobs and increased wages, wealth in general. I always thought that the was the trickle down "bargain."
If corporate America can guarantee steady profits without trickling down any of its wealth to the rest of us, then I'd say the theory is pretty much toast.
You sir have a point that forces some examination.
+1
Quote from: we vs us on August 11, 2010, 02:16:21 PM
Interesting. In the past I'd read you as talking about personal austerity, but it sounds like you're talking about corporate austerity, or business austerity. That's definitely a horse of a different color, especially if austerity means collateral damage of a 10% unemployment rate. If that's the new normal . . . well, welcome to your new welfare state.
And it might as well be the death of trickle down. If we grant government money (tax breaks, subsidies, preferential treatment) to the rich and to corporations, in return we should receive employment, right? That generosity should trickle down to the rest of us in the form of jobs and increased wages, wealth in general. I always thought that the was the trickle down "bargain."
If corporate America can guarantee steady profits without trickling down any of its wealth to the rest of us, then I'd say the theory is pretty much toast.
Good post.
I'd say it's the lack of corporations looking out for the public good. They seem to have lost sight that what's for the greater good also is good for America (and long-term business) as well. They've decided to pursue the almighty dollar RIGHT NOW and to hell with everything else, without considering the societal cost.
I've seen what conscience-less companies have done to towns such as Flint, Mich., and East St. Louis, Ill., and it ain't pretty. And this sort of attitude has been creeping into the mainstream for a long time. Not every corporation is doing it, but an awful lot are. Anyone who denies this is wearing blinders.
I don't know if the answer is government intervention as much as it is the American populace shaming these companies, instead of being an apologist for them.
Quote from: we vs us on August 11, 2010, 02:16:21 PM
Interesting. In the past I'd read you as talking about personal austerity, but it sounds like you're talking about corporate austerity, or business austerity. That's definitely a horse of a different color, especially if austerity means collateral damage of a 10% unemployment rate. If that's the new normal . . . well, welcome to your new welfare state.
And it might as well be the death of trickle down. If we grant government money (tax breaks, subsidies, preferential treatment) to the rich and to corporations, in return we should receive employment, right? That generosity should trickle down to the rest of us in the form of jobs and increased wages, wealth in general. I always thought that the was the trickle down "bargain."
If corporate America can guarantee steady profits without trickling down any of its wealth to the rest of us, then I'd say the theory is pretty much toast.
With the exception of mutually agreed upon numbers in "quality jobs" programs like the state of Oklahoma has, the government cannot mandate how many people a company should employ for a given profit structure. Otherwise you are slipping ever so close to those dreaded "c" and "s" words. The government can mandate what minimum wages are for trades on government contracts and projects it contracts out via Davis Bacon. They can't say how many pipefitters, welders, riveters, concrete finishers, floor sweepers, electrical journeymen, etc. a contractor must use to complete a project.
The profit margin is irrelevant anyhow when you look at staffing levels. 11% profit on $1mm worth of business is a whole lot different than 11% on $4mm. You can't sustain the same staffing levels at $1mm as you can at $4mm unless you want to run a business into the ground. As well, with your trickle down notion, tax breaks on $1mm are proportionately less than at $4mm.
Tax breaks are an incentive in a growing economy, but unless sales are rising, why hire more people? If ambiguity in legislation and executive actions are percieved as road blocks to growth, why would a CEO go on a hiring binge if that's his or her paradigm?
Capitalist economies and the businesses within them aren't altruistic in nature when it comes to hiring and maintaining staffing levels. At some point, all jobs could be lost within a company if some of the jobs are not sacrificed.
I'm a far better study of human behavior than I am an economist. Economic theories don't create jobs except for professors and jobs at the Federal Reserve. ;) People create jobs for others based on their best projections as to how well sales are doing and will do and how they feel the regulatory environment (including taxation) could affect their business.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 11, 2010, 02:30:56 PM
Good post.
I'd say it's the lack of corporations looking out for the public good. They seem to have lost sight that what's for the greater good also is good for America (and long-term business) as well. They've decided to pursue the almighty dollar RIGHT NOW and to hell with everything else, without considering the societal cost.
I've seen what conscience-less companies have done to towns such as Flint, Mich., and East St. Louis, Ill., and it ain't pretty. And this sort of attitude has been creeping into the mainstream for a long time. Not every corporation is doing it, but an awful lot are. Anyone who denies this is wearing blinders.
I don't know if the answer is government intervention as much as it is the American populace shaming these companies, instead of being an apologist for them.
Again, for profit companies don't exist for the greater good of all Americans nor the cities where they are located. We can blame the profit motives of corporations for picking up stakes and moving manufacturing jobs to China. I don't argue your points about Flint and ESL. From what I read, Detroit is almost skeletal remains of what it used to be.
It's not only the corporations who are to blame, you can also hand some of that blame on unions who priced jobs out of the US market into places like China, Mexico, and India. The U.S. consumer also gets some of the blame for expecting to be able to pay the same or less for a new washing machine today than what they paid for their old one they bought 10-15 years ago as well as wanting to maintain a standard of living which has priced them out of many job skill markets.
We need to rely on innovation and transition to being a leader in higher tech jobs and develop an affordable education system which will help staff jobs like that. Whether we like it or not, the U.S. is becoming a more tech-heavy and service economy, manufacturing which is labor intensive is going to continue to go overseas and to Mexico where the standards of living are lower.
"Shaming" corporations simply does not work. It only makes them want to do less business here in the states. The only real method we have to shame them is via the gov't.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2010, 02:47:08 PM
As well, with your trickle down notion, tax breaks on $1mm are proportionately less than at $4mm. Tax breaks are an incentive in a growing economy, but unless sales are rising, why hire more people?
Good you see that tax breaks are only effective at increasing hiring in a growing economy, not in a stagnant one.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2010, 02:47:08 PM
With the exception of mutually agreed upon numbers in "quality jobs" programs like the state of Oklahoma has, the government cannot mandate how many people a company should employ for a given profit structure. Otherwise you are slipping ever so close to those dreaded "c" and "s" words. The government can mandate what minimum wages are for trades on government contracts and projects it contracts out via Davis Bacon. They can't say how many pipefitters, welders, riveters, concrete finishers, floor sweepers, electrical journeymen, etc. a contractor must use to complete a project.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not advocating anything here. My point is that, Reagan proposed trickle down economics as a grand bargain, a new way to view (among other things) the relationship between labor, capital, and ownership. In fact, the idea itself is as old as society, but he recast it in a compelling way and it's been an underlying assumption in the way we (individuals, companies, and government) interface with our economy.
And he only proposed it as an idea, not as a policy with percentages and quotas attached. Simply: we'll pump money into the oligarchy so long as the oligarchy gives back. But now the feedback mechanism is borked, so that we're giving to the oligarchy but the oligarchy is hoarding while the rest of us slowly become poorer and poorer. Generally speaking, of course.
I'm talking about the demise of a certain social contract, not federal policy.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 11, 2010, 02:58:14 PM
Again, for profit companies don't exist for the greater good of all Americans nor the cities where they are located.
Exactly. I am not sure where the notion that a for profit company has any obligation to provide for the greater good of anything came from.
Quote from: guido911 on August 11, 2010, 04:30:51 PM
Exactly. I am not sure where the notion that a for profit company has any obligation to provide for the greater good of anything came from.
Then why should we care about them?
Restated: what interest should we have in nurturing them?
Quote from: guido911 on August 11, 2010, 04:30:51 PM
Exactly. I am not sure where the notion that a for profit company has any obligation to provide for the greater good of anything came from.
Helping create happier potential customers doesn't mean anything? There's a point where caring about nothing but chasing money becomes penny-wise and pound-foolish.
It's a little embarrassing to admit, but I've had a not-quite-conspiratorial thought about the '08 crash for a while now... It seemed to my economically half-informed mind that the big crash was not the result of outright collusion, but that a number of financially powerful people / companies were intentionally pushing the system to see where it would break. Now that they've explored that situation a bit, they'll go for one last squeeze that will truly wreck things this time, while making plans to flee or otherwise insulate themselves from the disaster that awaits on the other side.
You guys plus news of the Fed buying treasuries isn't doing much to blunt my admittedly intuitive concern.
To try to stay more on topic, there's nothing really obliging a for-profit company to provide for the greater good, but those in charge and still in possession of a moral compass would do so to some degree anyway. Certainly a little bit of that kind of thing in earnest would score points with customers and bring something good to the bottom line - it has -some- tangible value, not just fuzzy feelings, eh? In the absence of a significant enough $$$ value and no moral compass or any other need for warm fuzzies, we are indeed borked.
guido: It's my contention that we've pushed past the point you mention, but it no longer matters - they'll squeeze the last few drops, crushing the system then run away. My foil hat tells me that we're seeing just the nascence of a slow-motion economic horror.
Quote from: we vs us on August 11, 2010, 04:34:41 PM
Then why should we care about them?
Restated: what interest should we have in nurturing them?
Nurture them? What does that mean? Look, you don't have to like or care about corporations, that really is fine. However, the idea that a corporation that provides a good or service, and by the way employs people to provide that good or service,
owes something more such as the ambiguous "greater good" is simply wrong in my opinion. Now, if the corporation
chooses to perform "greater good" type things because it wants to be a good corporate citizen or whatever, so be it.
Quote from: guido911 on August 11, 2010, 04:59:46 PM
Nurture them? What does that mean? Look, you don't have to like or care about corporations, that really is fine. However, the idea that a corporation that provides a good or service, and by the way employs people to provide that good or service, owes something more such as the ambiguous "greater good" is simply wrong in my opinion. Now, if the corporation chooses to perform "greater good" type things because it wants to be a good corporate citizen or whatever, so be it.
It means that, in actuality, we have a level of control over what companies do. Not as much as we once did, that's for sure, but if you step outside our recent history -- where anything corporations do is seen (sometimes retroactively) as part of the necessary and right free market ecosystem -- it's obvious that we can push them in certain directions.
I know you'll hear that as blah blah blah socialism blah blah blah but really corporations aren't sacrosanct. They weren't created on the seventh day. They're legal structures, and as such, respond to changes made within their legal framework. And if that framework becomes more of a detriment to the well being of our country than a benefit, then we actually can change the framework so that it functions correctly.
It's funny that pointing out that it's our duty to actively control corporate law will get me labeled a radical Marxist, but then we live in strange times.
Quote from: we vs us on August 11, 2010, 05:18:56 PM
It means that, in actuality, we have a level of control over what companies do. Not as much as we once did, that's for sure, but if you step outside our recent history -- where anything corporations do is seen (sometimes retroactively) as part of the necessary and right free market ecosystem -- it's obvious that we can push them in certain directions.
I know you'll hear that as blah blah blah socialism blah blah blah but really corporations aren't sacrosanct. They weren't created on the seventh day. They're legal structures, and as such, respond to changes made within their legal framework. And if that framework becomes more of a detriment to the well being of our country than a benefit, then we actually can change the framework so that it functions correctly.
It's funny that pointing out that it's our duty to actively control corporate law will get me labeled a radical Marxist, but then we live in strange times.
The fact that your view of corporations differs from mine will not get you a "socialist" tag from me.
Quote from: we vs us on August 11, 2010, 04:27:22 PM
I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm not advocating anything here. My point is that, Reagan proposed trickle down economics as a grand bargain, a new way to view (among other things) the relationship between labor, capital, and ownership. In fact, the idea itself is as old as society, but he recast it in a compelling way and it's been an underlying assumption in the way we (individuals, companies, and government) interface with our economy.
And he only proposed it as an idea, not as a policy with percentages and quotas attached. Simply: we'll pump money into the oligarchy so long as the oligarchy gives back. But now the feedback mechanism is borked, so that we're giving to the oligarchy but the oligarchy is hoarding while the rest of us slowly become poorer and poorer. Generally speaking, of course.
I'm talking about the demise of a certain social contract, not federal policy.
Trickle down will only work if there's an accompanying confidence in the economy or near future economy. Otherwise people will hold money to avoid losses. When things start getting good again and there is growth throughout the economy investors and corporations will hire. Give them more net cash to invest via lower tax rates and that increases what is avaialble for discretionary spending on new hires and new capital improvements.
No one can know for certain that lowering tax rates alone created more jobs, but we do know that unemployment went from a high of around the mid 9's during President Reagan's first term to 5% when he left office. Was it coincidental that the top tax rate was lowered from 70% to the 30's?
Certainly lowering the top marginal rate and cutting cap gains taxes left those with large sums of money more to invest. It also was an incentive knowing they would not be penalized for those investments via high taxes. Regardless of how us plebes view taxes, when one group pays a significantly higher rate, that is viewed as a penalty for creating wealth for themselves and others.
As we all know, steel mills were closing and typical American manufacturing jobs were drying up in the 1980's. The energy business was taking a hit, the S & L's collapsed, etc. Those with large sums of money were able to invest in emerging technologies like PC's, software companies, and the expansion of the telecom industry including these new fangled cellular telephone thingies.
It may well have been a total coincidence that the economy expanded when tax rates were lowered, but it's entirely likely people might have been just fine getting 7 to 8% on their money in CD's or tax shelters rather than investing in all those new income opportunities had they not lowered cap gains and top income tax rates.
Republican politicians and conservative pundits can go on and on at this point about not repealing the Bush tax cuts but it's a moot point anyhow if overall confidence in the economy isn't there. Money will continue to sit in safe havens until the overall environment improves. I know it goes totally against common sense, but all my current IRA contributions and employer match are going into money market for the time being until I see some stabilization. No one is quite certain what it's going to take to get real growth back at this point, we are in uncharted territory with the kind of collapse we had. There's similarities to previous recessions and depressions, but we've not faced anything exactly like this.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 12, 2010, 09:10:30 AM
It may well have been a total coincidence that the economy expanded when tax rates were lowered, but it's entirely likely people might have been just fine getting 7 to 8% on their money in CD's or tax shelters rather than investing in all those new income opportunities had they not lowered cap gains and top income tax rates.
I think a lot of that new investing money that sprouted up during the 1980s came from the implementation of the 401(k) law. That went into effect in 1980, and made it very easy and advantageous for common workers to invest in the stock market.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on August 12, 2010, 10:37:08 AM
I think a lot of that new investing money that sprouted up during the 1980s came from the implementation of the 401(k) law. That went into effect in 1980, and made it very easy and advantageous for common workers to invest in the stock market.
That would also help explain healthy growth in the Dow in the 1980's as well as more and more people from all classes became shareholders in companies for the first time. I'm curious what kind of shape our economy would have been in the last 30 years if the PC had not been invented yet and therefore online commerce and the need for fast advanced telecommunications.
Think how much different the world would look right now if the integrated circuit and subsequent micro processors had not been invented yet.
Sorry for the drift, I'm simply explaining that tax cuts only work to stimulate spending when other incentives to invest exist. If those incentives (like confidence in the economy or actual orders) aren't there, the tax cuts are irrelevant. That, more than anything is what is being missed in all the rhetoric. I realize Turbo Tax Geithner and President Obama can't blow smoke up our asses about a rosy future, but they seem overly aloof to the problems while staying focused on agenda items instead of problem solving that the average American can relate to. More and more regulations, fees, and taxes are psychological dis-incentives for people to hire right now coupled with lower levels of orders.
You are correct Conan. I think people, including myself, tend to give government too much credit for manipulating the economy. That's not to say that they don't play a big roll, just that innovation, advances and the lack thereof, have a far more dramatic effect.
Funny that you use the word "aloof." Thats exactly how the London Telegraph is describing our President this morning.
"Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration's handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President's aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. "
Shame.
"Imperial style of leadership"
That's what's been bothering me that I could not put a finger on. They almost act like a royal family. Wow, that's pretty bad when even the liberal rags in the UK start going after President Obama.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 12, 2010, 03:16:40 PM
You are correct Conan. I think people, including myself, tend to give government too much credit for manipulating the economy. That's not to say that they don't play a big roll, just that innovation, advances and the lack thereof, have a far more dramatic effect.
Funny that you use the word "aloof." Thats exactly how the London Telegraph is describing our President this morning.
"Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration's handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President's aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. "
Shame.
Obviously the London Telegraph is racist.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 12, 2010, 03:23:35 PM
"Imperial style of leadership"
That's what's been bothering me that I could not put a finger on. They almost act like a royal family. Wow, that's pretty bad when even the liberal rags in the UK start going after President Obama.
"...even the liberal rags in the UK..."? ::)
Are we talking about the same London Daily
Torygraph... er, uh.... Telegraph? :D
Guido, in particular, everyone in general.
Peter Drucker is arguably the father of management practices in this country, if not the rest of the world. He and his contemporaries are directly responsible for making management a science that could be taught and practiced. He has an extensive body of literature to support his thoughts on the matter.
He said (paraphrased) things like;
There is no purpose for the existence of a corporation outside of its context as a tool of society.
The main way it fulfills that goal is through profit.
They exist to allow the leverage of effort toward a goal. (10 people working together are more productive than 1 working alone for 10 times the effort).
There is a social contract with same society.
If the tool isn't working within its context, then it should not exist.
My addition;
Failing is an option - no matter the size. Bailing out is also an option if there is a value created that exceeds the bailout. Examples; AIG bailout, no value created. GM bailout - good value created - leveraged to the effort of Ed Whitacre and the remaining employees of GM to create/save value for several million more. (All the suppliers/dealers/parts stores, etc surrounding the GM enterprise.)
A tiny little Drucker reference - everyone here knows how to find more about him if interested;
http://www.sixsigmaiq.com/columnarticle.cfm?externalid=2507&columnid=29
What is bad (not to mention troubling) for us in particular and the rest of the world in general is the fact that we have gotten away from the use of a corporation as a tool. It is no different from a hammer to a carpenter, a computer to a programmer, or one of those puffy white hats to a chef!
We have even given it human status to some degree. And the RWRE would have one believe that corporations
are independent of the society the exist in and by definition are intended to serve. They are wrong. The sooner we re-discover that fact and get back to the basics as defined and illustrated by Peter Drucker, et. al, the better off we will be individually and collectively.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 13, 2010, 01:54:45 PM
Guido, in particular, everyone in general.
Peter Drucker is arguably the father of management practices in this country, if not the rest of the world. He and his contemporaries are directly responsible for making management a science that could be taught and practiced. He has an extensive body of literature to support his thoughts on the matter.
He said (paraphrased) things like;
There is no purpose for the existence of a corporation outside of its context as a tool of society.
The main way it fulfills that goal is through profit.
They exist to allow the leverage of effort toward a goal. (10 people working together are more productive than 1 working alone for 10 times the effort).
There is a social contract with same society.
If the tool isn't working within its context, then it should not exist.
My addition;
Failing is an option - no matter the size. Bailing out is also an option if there is a value created that exceeds the bailout. Examples; AIG bailout, no value created. GM bailout - good value created - leveraged to the effort of Ed Whitacre and the remaining employees of GM to create/save value for several million more. (All the suppliers/dealers/parts stores, etc surrounding the GM enterprise.)
A tiny little Drucker reference - everyone here knows how to find more about him if interested;
http://www.sixsigmaiq.com/columnarticle.cfm?externalid=2507&columnid=29
What is bad (not to mention troubling) for us in particular and the rest of the world in general is the fact that we have gotten away from the use of a corporation as a tool. It is no different from a hammer to a carpenter, a computer to a programmer, or one of those puffy white hats to a chef!
We have even given it human status to some degree. And the RWRE would have one believe that corporations
are independent of the society the exist in and by definition are intended to serve. They are wrong. The sooner we re-discover that fact and get back to the basics as defined and illustrated by Peter Drucker, et. al, the better off we will be individually and collectively.
Drucker?
(http://i12.tinypic.com/522myav.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on August 13, 2010, 02:11:04 PM
Drucker?
(http://i12.tinypic.com/522myav.jpg)
I never realized Sam was a flamer. Don't you think he looks a bit effeminite there?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on August 13, 2010, 01:54:45 PM
Guido, in particular, everyone in general.
Peter Drucker is arguably the father of management practices in this country, if not the rest of the world. He and his contemporaries are directly responsible for making management a science that could be taught and practiced. He has an extensive body of literature to support his thoughts on the matter.
He said (paraphrased) things like;
There is no purpose for the existence of a corporation outside of its context as a tool of society.
The main way it fulfills that goal is through profit.
They exist to allow the leverage of effort toward a goal. (10 people working together are more productive than 1 working alone for 10 times the effort).
There is a social contract with same society.
If the tool isn't working within its context, then it should not exist.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. You have failed to recognize the tool for it's primary modern purpose though. Protection from liability. The role of the corporation has changed as the tort system has grown in this country. It is no longer a question of "if," a company will encounter legal liability, but "when," and "how much." The corporation in all of it's convoluted shapes and sizes is designed to protect the owners, workers, clients, and vendors from liability both internally and externally. From other companies and each other.
It has become more of a legal armor than a simple tool for banding together the productive innovation of groups of people. 20, 40 years ago, most independent self-employed business people were just that, sole proprietors. Now you find very few not operating under some form of corporation.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 13, 2010, 02:22:37 PM
Now you find very few not operating under some form of corporation.
Yeah, that's not really for liability reasons, it's because some smart guy thought up the idea of the LLC, thus allowing someone the simplicity of the sole proprietorship with the limited liability of a corporation. Even then, most people who have schedule C income are sole proprietors.
In 2007, there were 23,122,698 returns filed for sole proprietorships, despite the advantages of the LLC.
Quote from: nathanm on August 13, 2010, 04:27:54 PM
Yeah, that's not really for liability reasons, it's because some smart guy thought up the idea of the LLC, thus allowing someone the simplicity of the sole proprietorship with the limited liability of a corporation. Even then, most people who have schedule C income are sole proprietors.
In 2007, there were 23,122,698 returns filed for sole proprietorships, despite the advantages of the LLC.
True. I think you will find that may correlate perfectly with the number of physicians, dentists, and chiropractors in the US.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 16, 2010, 08:01:49 AM
True. I think you will find that may correlate perfectly with the number of physicians, dentists, and chiropractors in the US.
In many states, they have the option of the PLLC, which is basically an LLC for professionals who aren't eligible for the normal LLC.
Quote from: nathanm on August 16, 2010, 08:21:03 AM
In many states, they have the option of the PLLC, which is basically an LLC for professionals who aren't eligible for the normal LLC.
. . .and now that most physicians are hired under the umbrella of a "clinic" they no longer need an individual LLC, or even individual insurance policy. The landscape has really changed.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 10, 2010, 09:32:49 AM
This is my problem with all the lavish vacations: in times where spending is at record levels, ostensibly from the fiscal mis-management of the previous administration, what sort of example is the current President setting? Remember, President Bush was too aloof, spent too much time at his ranch and mismanaged the economy to the depths it's become so that we must spend billions in stimulus to bring it back from the brink.
I honestly have not seen nor heard anything out of President Obama which indicates that he truly has a grasp of what the average American is up against in terms of their concerns for keeping or finding a job and how we will ever pay down this debt. "This administration will not rest" rings hollow when the appearance is that the administration is always off to it's next great globe-trotting adventure.
Do I expect him to stay holed up in the White House 24/7 until things improve for everyone. No I don't, but I think galavanting about like a celebrity at this point in time is a huge PR mistake unless he's only interested in being a one term President. I have a feeling this will be used against him in the '12 election.
Now he's off to Martha's Vineyard!!! Hey, what's the hot selling merchandise out there?
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/08/ouch-bush-t-shirts-outselling-obama-on.html
bwahahahaha
I guess you all won't want facts to get in the way again will you? As of a month ago, Obama had taken half the vacation days that Bush II had, and through his first year he took fewer days than Reagan and both Bushes, interestingly he took more than Clinton and Carter.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/2506288,CST-NWS-obama18.article
It's all just more fake Fuax News and talk radio created noise about nothing.
Quote from: swake on August 19, 2010, 03:57:00 PM
I guess you all won't want facts to get in the way again will you? As of a month ago, Obama had taken half the vacation days that Bush II had, and through his first year he took fewer days than Reagan and both Bushes, interestingly he took more than Clinton and Carter.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/2506288,CST-NWS-obama18.article
It's all just more fake Fuax News and talk radio created noise about nothing.
No President ever truly goes on vacation in the first place. I don't blame them for getting out of the White House. It's unhealthy to live and work in the same spot day after dayand it's a 24/7 job. However, consdider that Bush's vacations generally were to the family compound in Kennebunktport, the Presidential retreat at Camp David, or his ranch in Crawford.
It's an image problem for President Obama going places like Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard, and the wife and kids entertaining a cadre of friends in Spain when we have record deficits and unemployment approaching 10%. He's free to do as he pleases but it tends to alienate others when he galavants about like royalty.
Phrases like "This adminsistration won't rest" sound disingenuous when people hear he's off on another vacation again.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 19, 2010, 04:16:40 PM
No President ever truly goes on vacation in the first place. I don't blame them for getting out of the White House. It's unhealthy to live and work in the same spot day after dayand it's a 24/7 job. However, consdider that Bush's vacations generally were to the family compound in Kennebunktport, the Presidential retreat at Camp David, or his ranch in Crawford.
It's an image problem for President Obama going places like Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard, and the wife and kids entertaining a cadre of friends in Spain when we have record deficits and unemployment approaching 10%. He's free to do as he pleases but it tends to alienate others when he galavants about like royalty.
Phrases like "This adminsistration won't rest" sound disingenuous when people hear he's off on another vacation again.
Martha's Vineyard..maybe, but Hawaii?
I guess people forget he was born there...but dem fax jes keep getun in de way...
::)
Quote from: Hoss on August 19, 2010, 04:20:16 PM
Martha's Vineyard..maybe, but Hawaii?
I guess people forget he was born there...but dem fax jes keep getun in de way...
::)
The birthers didn't get that message. He's from Kenya or Indonesia, or Dumfuc*istan.
One in six Americans receive some sort of government aid:
QuoteWASHINGTON — Government anti-poverty programs that have grown to meet the needs of recession victims now serve a record one in six Americans and are continuing to expand.
More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That's up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-08-30-1Asafetynet30_ST_N.htm
That is terrifying.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 19, 2010, 04:16:40 PM
No President ever truly goes on vacation in the first place. I don't blame them for getting out of the White House. It's unhealthy to live and work in the same spot day after dayand it's a 24/7 job. However, consdider that Bush's vacations generally were to the family compound in Kennebunktport, the Presidential retreat at Camp David, or his ranch in Crawford.
It's an image problem for President Obama going places like Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard, and the wife and kids entertaining a cadre of friends in Spain when we have record deficits and unemployment approaching 10%. He's free to do as he pleases but it tends to alienate others when he galavants about like royalty.
Phrases like "This adminsistration won't rest" sound disingenuous when people hear he's off on another vacation again.
Borrowed this from Drudge:
(http://www.drudgereport.com/obike.jpg)
(http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20100825/i/r2252523123.jpg?x=295&y=345&q=85&sig=A53m2Fi0cFrxyMFswT4IHA--)
Not stolen from Drudge:
(http://lolitician.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bush-segway.png)
Quote from: nathanm on August 30, 2010, 04:06:25 PM
Not stolen from Drudge:
(http://lolitician.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bush-segway.png)
That's awesome. Just look at YT and he's given comedians a treasure-trove for years to come.
Quote from: nathanm on August 30, 2010, 04:06:25 PM
Not stolen from Drudge:
(http://lolitician.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bush-segway.png)
Do you really want to go there?
Quote from: guido911 on August 30, 2010, 05:14:56 PM
Do you really want to go there?
I believe you went there first, sir.
(http://lolitician.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bush_regurgitate_mod1.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on August 30, 2010, 05:47:35 PM
I believe you went there first, sir.
(http://lolitician.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bush_regurgitate_mod1.jpg)
Must be from visiting those 57 states.
Quote from: nathanm on August 30, 2010, 05:47:35 PM
I believe you went there first, sir.
(http://lolitician.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bush_regurgitate_mod1.jpg)
Quote from: guido911 on August 30, 2010, 05:57:48 PM
Must be from visiting those 57 states.
More likely it was from this:
(http://lolitician.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bush_corn_mod.jpg)
No really.... THIS is terrifying!!
(http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz182/skunkwerksllc/flea.jpg)
Ok, Reddog, you can't keep bringing up George Bush in every conversation! Or his puppet masters (see picture you included...)
Or was that Karl Rove in the morning before his makeup session?
You want to know what's really terrifying?
In a recent Newsweek poll (http://nw-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/1004-ftop.pdf), the following question was asked: "Some people have alleged that Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to
impose Islamic law around the world. From what you know about Obama, what is your opinion of these
allegations?"
52% of people who stated they were registered Republican stated that they think the allegations are definitely or probably true. At least 40% of the Republicans polled aren't idiots. I guess that's something. The good news is that 65% of independents are not idiots. The (not so) shocking news is that 21% of the Democrats polled are members of the moonbat or "too stupid to vote" club.
24% of the sample is convinced that Obama is a Muslim.
A quarter of our country simply refuses to acknowledge reality, and more are at least partly divorced from it. That's a serious problem.
Quote from: nathanm on August 31, 2010, 07:00:50 PM
52% of people who stated they were registered Republican stated that they think the allegations are definitely or probably true. At least 40% of the Republicans polled aren't idiots. I guess that's something. The good news is that 65% of independents are not idiots. The (not so) shocking news is that 21% of the Democrats polled are members of the moonbat or "too stupid to vote" club.
This is just one issue. Throw in a few more issues and we can be sure to get the too stupid to vote numbers well above 60% or more for R, D, & I.
Quote from: nathanm on August 31, 2010, 07:00:50 PM
You want to know what's really terrifying?
In a recent Newsweek poll (http://nw-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/1004-ftop.pdf), the following question was asked: "Some people have alleged that Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to
impose Islamic law around the world. From what you know about Obama, what is your opinion of these
allegations?"
52% of people who stated they were registered Republican stated that they think the allegations are definitely or probably true. At least 40% of the Republicans polled aren't idiots. I guess that's something. The good news is that 65% of independents are not idiots. The (not so) shocking news is that 21% of the Democrats polled are members of the moonbat or "too stupid to vote" club.
24% of the sample is convinced that Obama is a Muslim.
A quarter of our country simply refuses to acknowledge reality, and more are at least partly divorced from it. That's a serious problem.
I think it is perhaps because President Obama has chosen a non-conventional presidential path. Every president we have ever had has acknowledged his religious faith or at least provided lip-service (no that is not a dig on Clinton). The President attended the Rev. Right's church for 20 years, but admits he never heard a single sermon (not really sure how that works).
When he came to Washington one of the big questions, as with any new president, is what church will he join. He never joined a church. He gives communion every Sunday morning at Our Lady of The Fairways.
So he has opened the door wide to speculation, and since this poll came out, over two weeks ago, he has simply brushed it off as "silly." It's obvious that he doesn't think it's that important of an issue. I don't think it's that important of an issue, however 83% of Americans are Christian, so you have to anticipate some level of suspicion, disappointment, or confusion. I don't think it's fair to call them "idiots" for speculating. People love a mystery and President Obama is providing the fodder for their imaginations.
Americans are creative people, and free to be so. It's what separates us from the rest of the world. The outrage on the left about speculation behind President Obama's religion really pisses me off. As a people we judge leaders on their actions, not their words. We are not some soviet empire where ruler and deity is interchangeable. It is not idiotic for us to question our ELECTED leader.
He could put a stop to this nonsense, but that would mean giving up the best tee times. And why would he want to do that just to go to some church to prey to himself. :D
You are full of crap, Gaspar.
Obama doesn't need to publicly go to a church to be a Christian. The media attacked his last church so violently that he probably doesn't want to put another preacher through that again.
"The outrage on the left about speculation behind President Obama's religion really pisses me off." Really? You need some deep therapy then.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 01, 2010, 08:26:18 AM
Obama doesn't need to publicly go to a church to be a Christian. The media attacked his last church so violently that he probably doesn't want to put another preacher through that again.
I agree. Perhaps it would be helpful for the president to just come out in an address and say "I don't believe I need to attend church to be a Christian." I think it would take a lot of pressure off of those who think that they do. As President, he is a high ranking role model and therefore responsible for not only his own actions, but the influence they have on others.
read this...
Holy BlackBerry! Obama Finds Ways to Keep the Faith During First Year in Office
If church attendance is one measure of a man's faith, then President Obama may appear to have lost some of his. The first family, once regular churchgoers, have publicly attended services in Washington just three times in the past year, by ABC News' count, even bypassing the pews on Christmas Day. Obama quit Chicago's embattled Trinity United Church of Christ months before taking office in 2008 and has not formally joined a new one in his new hometown.
But sources familiar with the president's personal life say Obama remains a faithful Christian while in the White House, practicing his beliefs regularly in private with family and the aid of his BlackBerry.
"Barack Obama is a Christian. He's always been clear and unapologetic about that, and he's comfortable with his own faith," Rev. Jim Wallis, an Obama friend and spiritual adviser, said. "But I think the president, particularly a president, needs the kind of pastoral care or spiritual counsel with people who don't have a political agenda. And it's hard for a president to get that."
Obama told ABC Nightline's Terry Moran that his personal BlackBerry, which he famously fought with the Secret Service to keep, has actually become a tool of keeping the faith during his first year in office. "My Faith and Neighborhood Initiatives director, Joshua DuBois, he has a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day," Obama said. "That's how I start my morning. You know, he's got a passage, Scripture, in some cases quotes from other faiths to reflect on."
Keeping the faith in quiet moments of worship may be the best Obama can do given the realities of the presidency that make it nearly impossible to join a church without inflicting a heavy burden on taxpayers, fellow churchgoers and his own spiritual life, sources say. Security concerns mean costly and complicated measures to ensure the president's safety on church outings, including screening every member of the congregation for weapons and sweeping the church building and areas around it for threats.
Incessant media attention is also distracting for any president trying to commune with God, exposing what is traditionally a private practice to public scrutiny, Wallis said. "I don't think for them [the family], it's a political decision," he said of Obama's church dilemma. "I think for the media, it's a political issue. Where they land and get their nurture, care and formation; that's very difficult for the first family to find."
The Obamas announced a search for a new place of worship in late 2008 after a scandal over incendiary comments by then-pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright forced their separation from Trinity, where they had been members for 20 years. Days before his inauguration, Obama described to ABC News the "difficult time" of being without a church, saying that despite receiving daily prayers from supporters, "it's not the same as going to church and the choir's going and you get this feeling."
But weeks later, when the Obamas ventured to 19th Street Baptist Church -- one of the oldest, most historic African-American churches in the nation's capital -- aides say the family was shocked by the circus atmosphere surrounding their attendance and dismayed that some longtime church members couldn't even get into the service. "It is tougher as president," Obama told ABC's George Stephanopoulos in his first year. "This is not just an issue of going to church, it's an issue of going anywhere."
Joshua DuBois, the White House religious affairs director, said last year that the Obamas "will choose a church home at a time that is best for their family." It's now looking increasingly like their search may be indefinite. Aides and family friends have spent months visiting various local churches on behalf of the Obamas. And on two occasions, the first family turned to an old presidential favorite across the street from the White House, St. John's Episcopal.
Every president since James Madison has attended a service at St. Johns, where pew 54 is designated as "The President's Pew." President Obama also enjoys worshipping "fairly regularly" at the Evergreen Chapel at Camp David, where the Rev. Carey Cash -– a U.S. Navy chaplain and great-nephew of singer Johnny Cash -- ministers, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has said. "We've been attending church, there's a little chapel up in Camp David when we go up there," Obama told ABC News' "Nightline" in July. "There's a wonderful young pastor up there, a chaplain, who does just wonderful work. And the Camp David families attend."
Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, also frequented the chapel at Camp David and ultimately chose not to formally join a church in Washington during his eight years in the White House.
A president's not formally joining a Washington, D.C., church is consistent with precedent, historians say.
"For the modern presidency, it is not the norm that a president attends church regularly," University of Maryland presidential scholar Matthew Burger said.
Burger, who studies presidents, religion and public life, points out that George W. Bush and his father, George H.W. Bush, were both "frequent attendees" at local churches but did not formally join a D.C. congregation. Ronald Reagan stands out as someone who articulated certainly the values of evangelical Christianity but was a pretty infrequent church attendee," Burger said. "He wasn't a member officially anywhere."
Jimmy Carter, who joined First Baptist Church in Washington, stands out as one of the most prominent presidential church-goers. He attended 72 Sunday services at First Baptist while in office, according to records kept by the Carter Library.
"Whenever he could, when he was on the road, he'd go to church, too," Steven Hochman, Carter Center researcher and assistant to the former president, told ABCNews.com.
And the Clintons, who attended Foundry United Methodist church near the White House regularly but did not formally join, are perhaps the exception in modern history for first family participation in church life, experts say. "The fact that Chelsea Clinton was able to be part of the youth group and sing in the youth choir and that all three of the Clintons could just drop in on a Sunday without creating too much of a stir really is a testament to that church congregation and may also have just been a stroke of luck," said Amy Sullivan, author of "The Party Faithful: How and Why Democrats Are Closing the God Gap," who also formerly attended Foundry Methodist at the same time as the Clintons.
"I don't think the Obamas could assume they can do the same thing, and the Bush family concluded they couldn't do that in D.C."
Despite the challenges of attending church while in office, Obama has indicated that he has not been detached from his faith or faith communities during his first year.
The President told ABC News in July that he prays every night before going to bed. "I pray all the time now," Obama said. "I've got a lot of stuff on my plate and I need guidance all the time." Aides say some of that guidance comes from the president's faith advisory council of 25 religious and non-profit leaders who help the administration partner with faith-based and community groups in providing social services.
Rev. Wallis, a member of the council, says the council is another means for the president to hear messages otherwise preached from the pulpit. "I think he certainly listens to people of faith when we speak about things we are about," he said.
Obama and all former U.S. presidents professed faith in Christianity, with most men identifying as Episcopalians, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Obama is the first U.S. president who affiliates with the Christian Protestant denomination, the United Church of Christ. Speaking on the eve of Martin Luther King Jr. Day earlier this month, Obama told a packed Vermont Avenue Baptist church in Washington, D.C., that faith keeps him grounded.
"I have a confession to make," he said. "There are times when I am not so calm. There are times when progress seems too slow. There are times when the words spoken about me hurt. There are times when the barbs sting. There are times when it feels like all these efforts are for not, that change is so painfully slow in coming and I have to confront my own doubt. During those times it is faith that keeps me calm."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-obama-blackberry-faith-white-house/story?id=9689272&page=1
Yep, so it's one standard for the apparent religious Republican; another for the 'Godless' Liberal.
::)
RM, I'm just waiting for Glen Beck or Hannity to get ahold of that story and cobble together this conclusion:
"President Obama worships his Blackberry!"
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2010, 09:04:08 AM
RM, I'm just waiting for Glen Beck or Hannity to get ahold of that story and cobble together this conclusion:
"President Obama worships his Blackberry!"
Funny.
I <3 my iPhone!
;D
Quote from: Hoss on September 01, 2010, 09:04:53 AM
Funny.
I <3 my iPhone!
;D
I'm picturing him stretched out on a prayer rug with his Blackberry at the head of it.
I think it's great that he and his family are making such a sacrifice. It sounds like they really would love to be more involved with their faith, but simply don't want to put anyone out, and as mentioned in another thread, the handheld devices really represent a miracle, apparently more to some than others.
I don't go to church regularly and I am passing no judgment on him, my point remains that he has opened the door to speculation and is frustrated that people are speculating. The media is outraged over the fact the the American public has an active imagination.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2010, 09:13:28 AM
I don't go to church regularly and I am passing no judgment on him, my point remains that he has opened the door to speculation and is frustrated that people are speculating. The media is outraged over the fact the the American public has an active imagination.
B.S. hypocrite.
You just want to take cheap shots and call it speculation.
I speculate you are really a alien from outer space. If anyone defends that you are not or tells me that your origin is none of my business, it will really piss me off.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 01, 2010, 09:21:13 AM
B.S. hypocrite.
You just want to take cheap shots and call it speculation.
I speculate you are really a alien from outer space. If anyone defends that you are not or tells me that your origin is none of my business, it will really piss me off.
He's not an alien from outer space and his origin is none of your business.
Damn dyslexia. I thought you said Organ, and I agree that my organ is none of your business.
Don't get angry. I am simply making an observation. There are a multitude of factors that are causing a significant portion of the American public to question President Obama's faith. Perhaps it's easier to continue this discussion by exploring some ways that he could end this speculation.
Like it or not, when it comes to faith, it is his responsibility to control the message. At this point he is not in control. What does he need to do to regain control?
"I'm going to pistol-whip the next person who says "Shenanigans"'
"Hey Farva, what's the name of that bar you always go to?"
Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2010, 07:57:08 AM
It is not idiotic for us to question our ELECTED leader.
It is idiotic, and a little offensive, (not because there's anything wrong with being a Muslim, but because the answer is so plainly obvious and well known that it shows ulterior motives when you get it wrong) to call someone who professes to be Christian a Muslim. Especially when there was so much coverage of his former church. It's not as if he's been secretive about exactly which religion he subscribes to. If he was less open about it, I could understand the confusion.
To my mind it's like asking "What does 2+2 equal?" and 52% of the sample stating that the answer is probably or definitely five. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2010, 10:03:39 AM
There are a multitude of factors that are causing a significant portion of the American public to question President Obama's faith. Perhaps it's easier to continue this discussion by exploring some ways that he could end this speculation.
Like it or not, when it comes to faith, it is his responsibility to control the message. At this point he is not in control. What does he need to do to regain control?
The multitude of factors can all be traced to political hacks repeating lies over and over again. He can never end unfounded "speculation" (lie after lie repeated).
He can't control the message. Not today. All it itakes is a couple of people commenting over and over again on FOX news and it will live forever.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 01, 2010, 01:20:30 PM
The multitude of factors can all be traced to political hacks repeating lies over and over again. He can never end unfounded "speculation" (lie after lie repeated).
He can't control the message. Not today. All it itakes is a couple of people commenting over and over again on FOX news and it will live forever.
It shouldn't matter any damned way.
Quote from: Townsend on September 01, 2010, 01:35:24 PM
It shouldn't matter any damned way.
+1
We never heard this kind of rhetoric when Bush was elected. I don't care what his name is, it should NEVER have been made part of the public discourse. Last time it was made as such, it was JFK and his 'Catholicness'....
It is idiotic and a whole lot offensive!!
The Murdochian lie machine is in full force on the church thing as it has been on so many topics related to Obama. And it is blatantly obvious from this that Rupert is not only an atheist, but a pedophile and terrorist supporter of Al Qaeda!! I suspect him of John Waters style oddities, too - as in the epicurean delights of Divine in Pink Flamingoes.
http://www.nndb.com/people/420/000023351/
And where did Reagan and Baby Bush attend church in DC? And why no outcry?
Again. . .It does no good to get mad at the american people and call them idiots. They are the very audience that he needs to move.
Fox News (and CNBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, CNN) did not touch this story until after the original Pew Poll results back on August 19th.
(http://pewresearch.org/assets/publications/1701-1.png)
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1701/poll-obama-muslim-christian-church-out-of-politics-political-leaders-religious
And of the Democrats polled, only 46% claimed to believe he is a Christian. Perhaps the rest are Fox fans? I don't know?
I watch fox in the morning and CNBC for most of the rest of the day online. Prior to this poll there was no discussion of President Obama's religious preferences. None since the election. There were a few quips here and there about him not attending prayer breakfasts and other noise, but nothing news worthy. It was after this poll, that all of the networks made it a top story. And continue to.
Now the more liberal of them have turned their anger and disbelief at the American people calling them everything from stupid, to idiotic. The blame game has started and of course FOX is going to be a target as they should be.
None of this changes the FACTS that a significant number of the american population questions the president's faith. So back to the question. How does he take control?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2010, 01:50:45 PM
Again. . .It does no good to get mad at the american people and call them idiots.
And of the Democrats polled, only 46% claimed to believe he is a Christian. Perhaps the rest are Fox fans? I don't know?
I'm not mad, I'm annoyed that I'm sharing a country with people who are that dense. It's one thing to not know (in fact, that could be considered a
good thing, who cares what religion he is?), but it's another thing entirely to say that he's probably or definitely a Muslim.
FWIW, in the Newsweek poll, only 17% of Democrats claimed he's a Muslim. I think the question about whether he favors Muslims to be even more interesting, where 59% of Republicans said he generally favors the interests of Muslims over other groups, while only 9% and 28% of Democrats and Independents believe that to be the case.
A large part of the issue is probably that mainly only the true believers nutballs are willing to identify themselves as Republican these days.
Quote from: Hoss on September 01, 2010, 01:38:46 PM
+1
We never heard this kind of rhetoric when Bush was elected. I don't care what his name is, it should NEVER have been made part of the public discourse. Last time it was made as such, it was JFK and his 'Catholicness'.... Romney and his moronism
FIFY, and yes, I'm aware I left an M out.
Quote+1
We never heard this kind of rhetoric when Bush was elected. I don't care what his name is, it should NEVER have been made part of the public discourse. Last time it was made as such, it was JFK and his 'Catholicness'.... Romney and his moronism
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2010, 02:03:05 PM
FIFY, and yes, I'm aware I left an M out.
I'll stick with Kennedy.
Beck can't say much about Romney and the only ones who ever grumble about someone else's religion are the ones who seem to hate that there are other religions...and hindu, islam, et al teach it's ok that there are other religions.
I'm pretty sure the agnostics and athiests were pretty quiet about Kennedy and catholicism. I'm thinking it was the Protestants having the fits then and I'm sure it's the same now.
Again, it should not matter.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2010, 02:03:05 PM
FIFY, and yes, I'm aware I left an M out.
It was more of his own party that were giving him a hard time than anything else.
Quote from: nathanm on September 01, 2010, 02:02:53 PM
I'm annoyed that I'm sharing a country with people who are that dense.
. . .the true believers nutballs. . .
Two very interesting parts of your comment that really require no explanation. I think you represent a significant segment of the liberal establishment. By your own admission, you are sharing the country with people who are far less intelligent than you, and you view those of faith, or at least "true believers" (as opposed to those who just offer lip-service) as nutballs.
Am I correct or did I miss something? The context and language seems very self explanatory.
This whole "controversy" about Obama is really for the mid year elections. If they can get enough people to be afraid of Obama ruining their life by not going to church, them many of them will vote for republicans in November to stop him.
Republicans don't run against their opponents, they run against Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Their tool is fear.
This is their perfect weapon.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 01, 2010, 02:17:13 PM
This whole "controversy" about Obama is really for the mid year elections. If they can get enough people to be afraid of Obama ruining their life by not going to church, them many of them will vote for republicans in November to stop him.
Republicans don't run against their opponents, they run against Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Their tool is fear.
This is their perfect weapon.
And, unfortunately, it appears that it is working for those Americans who believe the mob mentality that has started to propagate the Republican party and it's mouthpieces.
Quote from: nathanm on September 01, 2010, 01:13:11 PM
It is idiotic, and a little offensive, (not because there's anything wrong with being a Muslim, but because the answer is so plainly obvious and well known that it shows ulterior motives when you get it wrong) to call someone who professes to be Christian a Muslim. Especially when there was so much coverage of his former church. It's not as if he's been secretive about exactly which religion he subscribes to. If he was less open about it, I could understand the confusion.
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/03/obama-pastor-go.html
Quote from: guido911 on September 01, 2010, 02:24:48 PM
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/03/obama-pastor-go.html
What's your point?
Quote from: Townsend on September 01, 2010, 02:25:55 PM
What's your point?
Does he ever have one? My 6 year old nephew can make more coherent points.
Quote from: nathanm on September 01, 2010, 02:02:53 PM
I'm not mad, I'm annoyed
Where's that hair splitter graphic when I need it? So anyone who disagrees with your "facts" is dense? To people who gauge it only by his works and actions, it's not a "fact" that he's Christian when it's suspected by many he went to Wright's church to be a more effective community organizer, he was raised as a Muslim for part of his childhood, and he does not publicly worship at a Christian church these days.
Let's face it, one of three things is going on here: President Obama doesn't seem to worry much about his public perception, he's a simp along the lines of Forrest Gump or Chauncey Gardner, or he's a complete iconoclast. Some previous Presidents have not become "members" of churches in D.C. but they have publicly worshiped at them on a regular basis. He's given the rumor mill or stupidity mill plenty of fodder not following in the foot steps of his predecessors by being more private about his chosen method of worship.
I don't fault him for worshipping how he sees fit, that's his personal prerogative. Spirituality is all about your relationship with whatever your higher power is, religion is how we go about trying to find spirituality. Perhaps he simply does not have a need for religion to maintain his spirituality. I'm good with that. Personally, my church has two wheels on it or a couple of oars attached.
He does a lot of things which make him appear out of touch or like he doesn't quite get it. Like telling Americans his "administration won't rest" on a multitude of issues or blaming Bush for the record deficit, yet he's off to another golf outing or vacation at a playground for the wealthy. In reality, no President ever gets a day off. It's a 24 hour a day job for four to eight years, I understand that. However, in the court of public perception it makes him appear he's above the kind of austerity many of us are having to live with during tighter economic times and that he'd rather play than face the tough issues.
Perception is more important than reality when it comes to winning elections and maintaining power. That's one of the reasons he was elected with such a thin resume in the first place.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 01, 2010, 02:17:13 PM
This whole "controversy" about Obama is really for the mid year elections. If they can get enough people to be afraid of Obama ruining their life by not going to church, them many of them will vote for republicans in November to stop him.
Republicans don't run against their opponents, they run against Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Their tool is fear.
This is their perfect weapon.
And President Obama continues to run against President Bush. He was even doing it last night. Someone needs to remind him he's no longer campaigning. He's running the country.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 01, 2010, 02:17:13 PM
This whole "controversy" about Obama is really for the mid year elections. If they can get enough people to be afraid of Obama ruining their life by not going to church, them many of them will vote for republicans in November to stop him.
Republicans don't run against their opponents, they run against Obama and Nancy Pelosi. Their tool is fear.
This is their perfect weapon.
Kinda funny. Obama didn't help his case here (go to 1:12)
As for your comment as to what Repubs campaign against, are you freakin serious? Obama has been president for what, close to 20 months, and he is still blaming Bush for all our country's ills. More to the point:
QuoteAccording to one very plugged in Dem strategist, Democrats are privately asking themselves whether they are partly to blame for that separation.
After the 2008 elections, which were all about Bush, Dems turned to governing and largely dialed down the argument that the current crop of Republicans is indistinguishable in policy terms from Bush. They worry that this lull has allowed Republicans to rebrand themselves as different from Bush, even if that brand remains unpopular.
And that's why Dems are turning up the volume on the point that today's Republican policies -- the support for continuing Bush's tax cuts, the embrace of deregulation, Paul Ryan's push to do away with Social Security -- show that voting GOP is voting for a return to Bush.
"Why in the world would we want to go back to the same economic agenda that lost jobs for eight years?" DCCC chief Chris Van Hollen asked on Meet the Press recently. "What are you going to get that's different?
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/the_real_reason_dems_are_tying.html
Quote from: Townsend on September 01, 2010, 02:25:55 PM
What's your point?
No point whatsoever. I hear "G-d Damned America" all the time in my church. FOR THE RECORD, the debate over Obama's faith in my opinion is a waste of time.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2010, 02:35:16 PM
And President Obama continues to run against President Bush. He was even doing it last night. Someone needs to remind him he's no longer campaigning. He's running the country.
I don't think that every time he mentions Bush's name he's "running against Bush".
Quote from: nathanm on September 01, 2010, 02:44:22 PM
I don't think that every time he mentions Bush's name he's "running against Bush".
Good point, the other reason people run down other people is because there's nothing good they can point to about themselves and it helps them cover up their own lack of accomplishments.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2010, 02:45:49 PM
Good point, the other reason people run down other people is because there's nothing good they can point to about themselves and it helps them cover up their own lack of accomplishments.
Yeah, that's not what he was doing. He stated that Bush spoke to us from the Oval Office seven years ago to announce the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. He also stated that while the decision was contentious, that doesn't make him any less of a supporter of our troops.
None of that can even be remotely called "running against Bush," at least in my world view.
You guys keep dancing around the point. This whole religion debate is just a symptom.
President Obama does a very poor job of staying in front of the message. He has to change this, and define the message or the message will continue to define him.
In the past election he had a "movement" willing to elect him on cult of personality alone. He never even made an effort to confront such issues, because he didn't have to. Experience, ability, background, leadership skills, these were all secondary to the orgasm that surrounded his campaign.
Well, the orgasm is over and now we have to deal with the person. Do we make this a one night stand?
We will answer that question based on his abilities. . .Or I should say based on our perception of his abilities. The problem is that he has stayed behind message on nearly every issue that he has encountered.
The Economy--Don't let a crisis go to waste. . .Blame Bush.
Healthcare--Pass $900 billion bill. . .Don't read it. . .Don't let anyone else read it. . .Pelosi: "We have to pass it so you can see what's in it". . .No one understands it. . .Not workable.
The BP Spill--Wait a few months. . .Play golf. . .Vacation. . .Finally act after duress. . .BP offers 20 billion to hush. . .Where's the oil?
Increasing Unemployment--Don't explore remedies. . .Continue unemployment. . .Pelosi: "Unemployment Checks are the best way to create jobs."
Nuclear Iran--Do nothing. . .Do nothing. . .Increase sanctions. . .Do nothing. . .Too late they have a reactor.
Afganistan--McChrystal demands 30K troups. . .Denied. . .Denied. . .Announces his plan for 30k troups. . .McCrystal fired for disrespect.
Iraq--Surge will not work!. . .Surge starts to work. . .Establish draw down time. . .remove 30K in combat troups change designation of remaining 50K troups to "support capacity". . .Give speech, but don't mention the surge.
So basically he stays cautiously behind every message. Therefore they define him. This is the sign of a politician, not a leader or a president. This is what people are beginning to see now. I think there is a certain degree of regret among his fold. Anything he might have to hold up as a triumph has already been defined by his opponents as a failure. He has let this happen by being reactive rather than proactive. The silly debate on his religion is just another example.
Quote from: nathanm on September 01, 2010, 02:53:19 PM
Yeah, that's not what he was doing. He stated that Bush spoke to us from the Oval Office seven years ago to announce the beginning of hostilities in Iraq. He also stated that while the decision was contentious, that doesn't make him any less of a supporter of our troops.
None of that can even be remotely called "running against Bush," at least in my world view.
If Gibbs ever quits, I will make sure your adroitness at defending President Obama at every turn gets the attention of someone in the White House and you can be the new press secretary.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2010, 03:09:52 PM
If Gibbs ever quits, I will make sure your adroitness at defending President Obama at every turn gets the attention of someone in the White House and you can be the new press secretary.
(http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h237/Clarknt67/leave-Obama-alone.jpg)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2010, 02:54:48 PM
President Obama does a very poor job of staying in front of the message. He has to change this, and define the message or the message will continue to define him.
You are in good company. David Gergen, whom I think used to have the same leg tingling experiences as Chris Matthews is perplexed:
"David Gergen: I found the speech "perplexing"
"I frequently praise Barack Obama and his speeches. I think they have been clear, understandable and very, very well written. I found this one perplexing. I didn't quite understand what the point was, it wasn't clear what the mission is either in Iraq or in Afghanistan going forward, it seems to be much more we are getting this monkey off our back. We gave it our best shot, over to you, Iraqis. Over to you next year, Afghans."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/31/reaction-to-president-obamas-iraq-address/
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2010, 03:15:32 PM
You are in good company. David Gergen, whom I think used to have the same leg tingling experiences as Chris Matthews is perplexed:
"David Gergen: I found the speech "perplexing"
"I frequently praise Barack Obama and his speeches. I think they have been clear, understandable and very, very well written. I found this one perplexing. I didn't quite understand what the point was, it wasn't clear what the mission is either in Iraq or in Afghanistan going forward, it seems to be much more we are getting this monkey off our back. We gave it our best shot, over to you, Iraqis. Over to you next year, Afghans."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/31/reaction-to-president-obamas-iraq-address/
This was another opportunity to present a clear plan, even if it was only rudimentary, but again he wants to hang back and observe. This is what a subordinate does to make sure he doesn't make a decision that goes against the will of his superiors.
As my dad said last night after the speech. "This job is just not right for him."
Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2010, 03:21:25 PM
This was another opportunity to present a clear plan, even if it was only rudimentary, but again he wants to hang back and observe. This is what a subordinate does to make sure he doesn't make a decision that goes against the will of his superiors.
As my dad said last night after the speech. "This job is just not right for him."
Unfortunate he Peter Principaled into the most important job in the free world.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2010, 03:24:17 PM
Unfortunate he Peter Principaled into the most important job in the free world.
I would accept that of Bush, but President Obama shot to the job before even getting an opportunity to prove himself as a Senator. I remember his name first came up during the 2004 Bush/Kerry election. He had just won his senate seat and commentators were already talking about a possible presidential run.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2010, 03:09:52 PM
If Gibbs ever quits, I will make sure your adroitness at defending President Obama at every turn gets the attention of someone in the White House and you can be the new press secretary.
I think one of us has a reading comprehension problem.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2010, 03:37:49 PM
I would accept that of Bush, but President Obama shot to the job before even getting an opportunity to prove himself as a Senator. I remember his name first came up during the 2004 Bush/Kerry election. He had just won his senate seat and commentators were already talking about a possible presidential run.
Oh, you could see the commentators passing the Astro Glide back and forth under the desk when they were talking about newly-minted Senator Obama. Must have been the voice. They got hopenotized at the DNC convention. Much like when Bubba's star was launched at the '88 DNC. For as much smile as people talk on President Clinton history will show he was actually a pretty good leader. I think President Obama will be remembered about as fondly as Carter, but he will still kick around for another 30 to 40 years sniping at subsequent administrations.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2010, 03:56:46 PM
Oh, you could see the commentators passing the Astro Glide back and forth under the desk when they were talking about newly-minted Senator Obama. Must have been the voice. They got hopenotized at the DNC convention. Much like when Bubba's star was launched at the '88 DNC. For as much smile as people talk on President Clinton history will show he was actually a pretty good leader. I think President Obama will be remembered about as fondly as Carter, but he will still kick around for another 30 to 40 years sniping at subsequent administrations.
If he continues this path for the next couple of years he may very well tank the US economy and win another Nobel Prize for uh. . .??. . .whatever.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2010, 03:09:52 PM
If Gibbs ever quits, I will make sure your adroitness at defending President Obama at every turn gets the attention of someone in the White House and you can be the new press secretary.
Good grief Conan, there are about five in this forum that could be Gibbs' replacement.
He actually has a couple more weeks to make a decision on weather he will raise taxes or lower them.
(http://www.natzraya.org/Articles/Appetizer/gladiatordown.jpg)
This will determine our fate.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 01, 2010, 04:00:34 PM
If he continues this path for the next couple of years he may very well tank the US economy and win another Nobel Prize for uh. . .??. . .whatever.
Nobel prize for economics for globalizing the U.S. economy by single-handedly racking up the most debt in human history and causing the dollar to topple.
And for once, Al Gore will not try and take credit for something himself, though he will slit his wrists out of insane jealousy that President Obama is getting all the attention and has one more Nobel than he does.
Quote from: guido911 on September 01, 2010, 04:01:01 PM
Good grief Conan, there are about five in this forum that could be Gibbs' replacement.
Aren't you carrying the spirit of Tony Snow?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2010, 02:33:20 PM
Where's that hair splitter graphic when I need it? So anyone who disagrees with your "facts" is dense? To people who gauge it only by his works and actions, it's not a "fact" that he's Christian when it's suspected by many he went to Wright's church to be a more effective community organizer, he was raised as a Muslim for part of his childhood, and he does not publicly worship at a Christian church these days.
That's the crux of the whole thing. Facts are actually facts. It is a fact that Obama is a christian. Regardless of how he was raised, regardless of how he used to or currently worships.
People who believe or "suspect" that Obama is a muslim are wrong. I'm confident in saying that because the facts absolutely back it up. This is the most disturbing part of this conversation. It is fact based, and yet many people -- many of them from a certain political bent -- don't believe in these facts. They believe in other "facts" -- conveniently supplied to them by sympathetic media -- that back up some of their preconceived opinions.
The conflict between facts and "facts" has been an ongoing and deepening tragedy for our country over the last decade. The Iraq War is a case study in the triumph of "facts" over facts, but there have been plenty of other examples. The idea that Obama is Muslim is another.
Facts are usually backed up by evidence. Unless you have genuflected to the cross shoulder-to-shoulder with President Obama, where is your evidence? Are you in his inner circle? How do you know, unequivocally he doesn't get the prayer rug out every day and pray toward Mecca? You have no more facts available to you than those who think he's a Muslim, a Kenyan, or a Kennedy love child.
You have lost it Conan.
How about the fact that he attended a Christian Church for twenty years? How about the fact that he had a Christian wedding? How about the fact that his kids were baptized in the Christian Church?
Yes. No one really knows anything. But there are facts to use. If a person says they are a Christian, then acts like a Christian, why would you and others speculate otherwise? (Hint...nasty politics).
Quote from: Conan71 on September 02, 2010, 12:30:37 AM
Facts are usually backed up by evidence. Unless you have genuflected to the cross shoulder-to-shoulder with President Obama, where is your evidence? Are you in his inner circle? How do you know, unequivocally he doesn't get the prayer rug out every day and pray toward Mecca? You have no more facts available to you than those who think he's a Muslim, a Kenyan, or a Kennedy love child.
I don't have to see and experience every piece of evidence personally to know something is true. So: the President himself has said he's Christian; for years he attended Jeremiah Wright's church, which is a Christian church. It's been widely reported by journalists in respected outlets that he was and is a Christian. All of these things make him a Christian.
Further, there's no evidence that he was every raised as a Muslim. In fact, the only reported contact he had with Islam while growing up is his couple of years in Indonesia while he was a child.
But, if we want to get all epistemelogical, I suppose we can say that we can't know that he's not a Muslim, just like I can't know that you're not a Muslim, secretly, in your home, when the shades are drawn and I'm not around. And by that standard, we can't know ANYONE'S not a Muslim, simply because we can't be around them 24/7.
Quote from: we vs us on September 02, 2010, 07:06:19 AM
I don't have to see and experience every piece of evidence personally to know something is true. So: the President himself has said he's Christian; for years he attended Jeremiah Wright's church, which is a Christian church. It's been widely reported by journalists in respected outlets that he was and is a Christian. All of these things make him a Christian.
Further, there's no evidence that he was every raised as a Muslim. In fact, the only reported contact he had with Islam while growing up is his couple of years in Indonesia while he was a child.
But, if we want to get all epistemelogical, I suppose we can say that we can't know that he's not a Muslim, just like I can't know that you're not a Muslim, secretly, in your home, when the shades are drawn and I'm not around. And by that standard, we can't know ANYONE'S not a Muslim, simply because we can't be around them 24/7.
Yeah, I always hate having to figure out which way is east whenever I'm somewhere....
/snark
Again. . . I don't care what his religion or lack of is. I think he is a Christian if only in word. I do not think he is Muslim.
The point is that his image is not in his control. His message is not in his control. He has put himself in a very bad position by allowing such things to go so far. He is not only lax in his personal message control, but behind the message on everything. This will continue to define him.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 02, 2010, 07:54:08 AM
Again. . . I don't care what his religion or lack of is. I think he is a Christian if only in word. I do not think he is Muslim.
The point is that his image is not in his control. His message is not in his control. He has put himself in a very bad position by allowing such things to go so far. He is not only lax in his personal message control, but behind the message on everything. This will continue to define him.
No image is completely in anyone's control.
I can post that you are a post-op transsexual. If I do it enough, people will start saying that Gaspar is a post-op transsexual. They won't need proof. They will just believe it.
Once they believe it, you can scream from the rooftops that your equipment is standard but it won't matter. You will be perceived by many to be a post-op transsexual.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 02, 2010, 07:54:08 AM
Again. . . I don't care what his religion or lack of is. I think he is a Christian if only in word. I do not think he is Muslim.
The point is that his image is not in his control. His message is not in his control. He has put himself in a very bad position by allowing such things to go so far. He is not only lax in his personal message control, but behind the message on everything. This will continue to define him.
There's no way he can take his image back, or control the message. The people who believe he's Muslim believe it for reasons entirely unrelated to what Obama does or doesn't do. They believe he's Muslim because their conduits of fact have told them he is. So it's a matter of fact now -- or "fact" -- to these people.
Gaspar is a post-op transexual? Serious? I'll go post that on Facebook.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 02, 2010, 09:44:55 AM
Gaspar is a post-op transexual? Serious? I'll go post that on Facebook.
You can just share my post on FB
Quote from: we vs us on September 02, 2010, 09:44:16 AM
There's no way he can take his image back, or control the message. The people who believe he's Muslim believe it for reasons entirely unrelated to what Obama does or doesn't do. They believe he's Muslim because their conduits of fact have told them he is. So it's a matter of fact now -- or "fact" -- to these people.
Sure he can control the message.
All he has to do is get his PR machine in gear. He's got the attention of every single media outlet known to man. You have photos taken worshipping, with a cross in the background while he works, or photos walking into church or you finally say "Enough is enough! I'm a Christian". Presidents have always used the photo-op to convey images about their character, what they enjoy, and to relate to the common man or transsexual.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 02, 2010, 09:49:11 AM
Sure he can control the message.
All he has to do is get his PR machine in gear. He's got the attention of every single media outlet known to man. You have photos taken worshipping, with a cross in the background while he works, or photos walking into church or you finally say "Enough is enough! I'm a Christian". Presidents have always used the photo-op to convey images about their character, what they enjoy, and to relate to the common man or transsexual.
Then Limbaugh et al would just say "he's denying it. Why is he hiding it? This is his next step to enslave us all." etc etc
Quote from: Conan71 on September 02, 2010, 09:49:11 AM
Sure he can control the message.
All he has to do is get his PR machine in gear.
His PR machine does no good when it comes to people who only get news from Fox and the right wing radio nuts. If they weren't already getting their news from only those sources, they wouldn't believe that Obama probably or definitely is a Muslim. QED
You can't force people to accept reality.
Also, Townsend's point about not dignifying such stupidity with a response is a good one.
So you guys prove the point that Obama thinks it's not worth trying to control the message. Got it!
Quote from: Conan71 on September 02, 2010, 10:20:32 AM
So you guys prove the point that Obama thinks it's not worth trying to control the message. Got it!
Please explain how Obama can control what Rush Limbaugh, the O'Hannity Brothers, or Glenn Beck are saying.
Also, please explain how a person can be forced to accept facts which they refuse to believe.
Quote from: nathanm on September 02, 2010, 10:30:30 AM
Please explain how Obama can control what Rush Limbaugh, the O'Hannity Brothers, or Glenn Beck are saying.
Well, he is the President of the USA...I guess he can have them sanctioned.
Quote from: nathanm on September 02, 2010, 10:30:30 AM
Please explain how Obama can control what Rush Limbaugh, the O'Hannity Brothers, or Glenn Beck are saying.
Also, please explain how a person can be forced to accept facts which they refuse to believe.
You can still send a message IN SPITE of what others say or think, that's the point. As it is, he gives the impression to many that he's aloof and doesn't care about his public image. He's not doing a very good job of relating to most Americans and it's not just the gun-hugging, Limpbaugh/Beck listening crowd who see this either. It's a departure from the behavior of previous Presidents. Either he's clueless or simply an iconoclast. That's his prerogative, but it makes an attempt to be re-elected in 2012 much more difficult. The mystery surrounding him in 2008 served him well, as he truly was a relatively new arrival to D.C. and I think the electorate wanted an outsider, amongst other things in their next President.
Honestly, I don't care what religion he practices that's not my point anyhow.
As far as Presidential images:
President Reagan took office just a few weeks prior to his 70th birthday. Rather than convey the image of a senior citizen, we saw photos like these:
(http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c5276-9A.jpg)
(http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c23491-27.jpg)
Even though President Clinton had a well-known voracious appetite for skanks, he made sure people knew he was a church-going Christian:
(http://www.tribuneindia.com/1998/98aug18/1701b.jpg)
A photo of FDR in a wheelchair was incredibly rare because a wheelchair sent a message of weakness:
(http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/081108/GAL-08Nov08-1048/media/PHO-08Nov08-137887.jpg)
JFK was portrayed as a family man, and images of his youth and energy served him well even though he was reputedly sickly from Addison's disease, shot up with amphetamines daily, lived in constant pain, and shared a common trait with President Clinton:
(http://www.sitetastic.net/sites/thejfkclub/photo%20gallery/zwo3vpy6u_jfk3.jpg)
(http://freefallingthroughhistory.info/jfkpt109.jpg)
(http://www.plambeck.org/oldhtml/journal/football.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 02, 2010, 11:11:06 AM
You can still send a message IN SPITE of what others say or think, that's the point.
You're missing my point. Obama does send all kinds of messages. Calm rationality is a big one. This sort of thing won't seep through to the sort of person who has convinced themselves against all evidence that Obama is a Muslim. It's like trying to argue with a dog. Reason need not apply.
By the standard that you have just outlined, this should have ended the speculation once and for all:
(http://www.ramzybaroud.net/uploads/obama_cross.jpg)
What, specifically, is it that you think could be done better? Not glittering generalities like "improve the dissemination of his message," but specific action items.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 02, 2010, 11:11:06 AM
You can still send a message IN SPITE of what others say or think, that's the point. As it is, he gives the impression to many that he's aloof and doesn't care about his public image. He's not doing a very good job of relating to most Americans and it's not just the gun-hugging, Limpbaugh/Beck listening crowd who see this either. It's a departure from the behavior of previous Presidents. Either he's clueless or simply an iconoclast. That's his prerogative, but it makes an attempt to be re-elected in 2012 much more difficult. The mystery surrounding him in 2008 served him well, as he truly was a relatively new arrival to D.C. and I think the electorate wanted an outsider, amongst other things in their next President.
Honestly, I don't care what religion he practices that's not my point anyhow.
If Obama did any of those things he'd be portrayed as a
1. ax wielding maniac
2. thug
3. poser
4. making fun of the handicapped
5. child molester
6. pervert
7. stereotyped
by Limbaugh/Beck and their followers
Quote from: Conan71 on September 02, 2010, 11:11:06 AM
You can still send a message IN SPITE of what others say or think, that's the point.
If you were friends with the White House on Facebook, you'd see how many images he's churning out, as well as status updates. Or maybe you linked to his Twitter account, or to his Flickr stream, not to mention the juggernaut that Whitehouse.gov has become. Or maybe you've been watching CNN or MSNBC and seen some of the well-placed and occasionally beautiful images they show of him (beautiful as in excellently executed, not beautiful as in, "Obama, you're so dreeeeeamy!") The New York Times, the Washington Post, the AP, etc, all publish excellent pics quite often. So does Newsweek and Time.
You also may have forgotten this:
(http://obeygiant.com/images/2008/11/obama-hope-shelter-copy-500x752.jpg)
So if we're talking image control and PR, it's there. But that's also beside the point. Because the people who believe he's Muslim (AND ALL THAT THAT ENTAILS, WINKWINK, NUDGENUDGE) don't believe these sources.
Hope is fading fast
Huh. Well there's your problem right there. You guys all think that image is simply related to Images. Well you are right to an extent, but too often images portray underlying messages.
Take the Obama Hope mural above. We've seen that exact same image with the far left stare plastered on buildings in the middle east, street banners in the old soviet union, china, or most recently in pre-liberation Iraq. The players are different but the image structure is the same. Strong vector drawing showing leader glancing off into the future. Looking out over the problems of the present.
We've seen other foreign leaders and movements adopt logos/symbols throughout history. Monikers for flags or armbands. Typical American campaign logos and imagery is abandon once the campaign is over.
Ok, I'm about to get blasphemous. Obama is not a God. He is not to be worshiped. The policies are what is important. The leadership is important. I'm sure he is a very nice person, but I could care less about Stallenesque images or new-age-pagan symbolics. The "symbol" of the man and what he represents is only as good as the outcome it produces.
I do not want to drive down the street and see images of my dear leader. I want to see commerce, and trade and images of my fellow Americans making money. I want to see billboards with plumbers and evil banks. I want images of new cars, fancy restaurants, and a giant mouse saying "Come to Chucky Cheese".
The president's reliance on imagery of himself and the fact that more young people probably recognize the official Obama insignia more readily than the presidential seal bothers me a little. I think it's starting to bother a lot of people.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 03, 2010, 08:02:08 AM
I do not want to drive down the street and see images of my dear leader.
You act as if Obama is putting up posters of himself in his spare time...
If other people are inspired by Obama and want to proudly show their support, they can. If you want to show your love for dollar bills, feel free to put up pictures of money on your walls.
Your inane attacks in this thread are silly.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 03, 2010, 08:02:08 AM
Huh. Well there's your problem right there. You guys all think that image is simply related to Images. Well you are right to an extent, but too often images portray underlying messages.
Take the Obama Hope mural above. We've seen that exact same image with the far left stare plastered on buildings in the middle east, street banners in the old soviet union, china, or most recently in pre-liberation Iraq. The players are different but the image structure is the same. Strong vector drawing showing leader glancing off into the future. Looking out over the problems of the present.
We've seen other foreign leaders and movements adopt logos/symbols throughout history. Monikers for flags or armbands. Typical American campaign logos and imagery is abandon once the campaign is over.
Ok, I'm about to get blasphemous. Obama is not a God. He is not to be worshiped. The policies are what is important. The leadership is important. I'm sure he is a very nice person, but I could care less about Stallenesque images or new-age-pagan symbolics. The "symbol" of the man and what he represents is only as good as the outcome it produces.
I do not want to drive down the street and see images of my dear leader. I want to see commerce, and trade and images of my fellow Americans making money. I want to see billboards with plumbers and evil banks. I want images of new cars, fancy restaurants, and a giant mouse saying "Come to Chucky Cheese".
The president's reliance on imagery of himself and the fact that more young people probably recognize the official Obama insignia more readily than the presidential seal bothers me a little. I think it's starting to bother a lot of people.
So which is it? Has he lost control of his image or does he have complete, totalitarian control over it?
Or is it maybe you just don't like anything about him?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 03, 2010, 08:02:08 AM
The president's reliance on imagery of himself and the fact that more young people probably recognize the official Obama insignia more readily than the presidential seal bothers me a little. I think it's starting to bother a lot of people.
What I got from your post is that it doesn't matter what he does, you're going to disapprove anyway.
You also have a strong misunderstanding of the left if you think anyone worships him as a God. Many are rightfully pissed off at how far from a leftist he his, yet you constantly condemn him for being some kind of iron-fisted Communist with some crazy cult of personality. It's rhetoric right out of the 1950s, and it's simply not accurate.
Also:
(http://www.newsgroper.com/files/post_images/mission_accomplished.jpg)
Yeah, that's not campaign imagery at all. ::)
If you want what you claim to want (more economic activity, billboards of Chuck-e-cheese, etc.), you should stop being against another stimulus. If you look at GDP growth, you'll see that as the stimulus ramped up, growth increased. As the stimulus has ramped down, growth has decreased.
And personally? I'd rather not see giant billboards anywhere. They're an eyesore. I wish more cities and states were had strong regulations on them.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 03, 2010, 08:20:51 AM
You act as if Obama is putting up posters of himself in his spare time...
If other people are inspired by Obama and want to proudly show their support, they can. If you want to show your love for dollar bills, feel free to put up pictures of money on your walls.
Your inane attacks in this thread are silly.
It's that mentality which will doom the Obama Administration to one term. This is precisely what President Obama's handlers are missing. Instead of seeking to understand the real reasons why Americans are increasingly becoming dissatisfied with his leadership it's summarily dismissed as a partisan hatred of the man himself, racism, or simply red herrings and strawman attacks.
It's not. People have very real reasons for disapproving of the job he's doing. His leadership style is tepid, and to many he comes off as cool, stiff, aloof, and sometimes detached from the significance of a major event or crisis. People want to go back to work and as they get frustrated with their job search this administration stays focused on idealistic agenda items which aren't helping those people find jobs.
I don't feel inspired when I hear President Obama talk, I feel like I'm being lectured to. The great leaders I've admired throughout my life, world leaders and those I've known through business or local politics, have been inspirational people who truly empathized and led by example. I've admired Democrats as much as Republicans, blacks, Asians, Muslims, Hispanics, and white men and women alike. At least for me, there's no pre-concieved bias I have against our President other than the very thin resume he brought to the job.
He has also apparently departed with the traditional Presidential message machine I grew up being used to. I shouldn't have to be a fan of the White House Facebook page, follow him on Twitter, or go to whitehouse.gov to keep up with him. Somehow, he just doesn't seem to be conveying the sort of images in a manner I relate to that I got from Presidents Nixon, Carter, Reagan, the Bushes, and Clinton.
He's a dreamer and idealist, I admire him for that. Unfortunately this is just not a period in U.S. history where that's an ideal leadership style.
The notion that a president is totally in control of his image is preposterous. You're always going to have a certain segment of people -- no matter who's the commander-in-chief -- who will willingly stoop to any level ito try to take him down.
I remember people who insisted that Reagan was itching to press the missile-launch button and take us into nuclear war. I remember people who insisted that Clinton was doing murder-for-hire hits on people who stood in his way. All of this stuff flew in the face of abundant evidence. You're always going to have a fringe element who accept this stuff without skepticism.
And anyone who claims that these type of attacks are new are showing their ignorance of history. At the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library in Springfield, one wing displays newspaper accounts from the 1860s, stuff that makes the worst anti-Bush or anti-Obama screed look tame. Lincoln was outright accused of being part ape, part Negro, or mentally retarded. There even were thinly veiled insinuations that Lincoln was suffering from some sort of loathsome disease such as syphilis. And that just scratches the surface.
So what you're seeing, it ain't new.
Quote from: nathanm on September 03, 2010, 09:19:15 AM
If you want what you claim to want (more economic activity, billboards of Chuck-e-cheese, etc.), you should stop being against another stimulus. If you look at GDP growth, you'll see that as the stimulus ramped up, growth increased. As the stimulus has ramped down, growth has decreased.
And personally? I'd rather not see giant billboards anywhere. They're an eyesore. I wish more cities and states were had strong regulations on them.
Wrong answer. We don't need a stimulus to get the wheels rolling again. Cash is out there, it's sitting idle. People who run corporations and small business want inspiration and confidence that the worst is behind us and they will start spending money again.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on September 03, 2010, 09:25:11 AM
The notion that a president is totally in control of his image is preposterous. You're always going to have a certain segment of people -- no matter who's the commander-in-chief -- who will willingly stoop to any level ito try to take him down.
No it's not preposterous. He can control the message which gets out to the public. He cannot control how it is interpreted, ignored, or accepted. Throwing his hands up and saying: "No matter what I do they won't believe it" is the wrong approach. That's what I'm hearing from the Obama apologists on here anyhow.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 03, 2010, 09:23:30 AM
It's not. People have very real reasons for disapproving of the job he's doing. His leadership style is tepid, and to many he comes off as cool, stiff, aloof, and sometimes detached from the significance of a major event or crisis. People want to go back to work and as they get frustrated with their job search this administration stays focused on idealistic agenda items which aren't helping those people find jobs.
Good, then, that he's been one of the strongest champions in Washington for extended unemployment benefits.
There's some speculation that he's going to announce an economic program sometime in the next week. I hope so. Perhaps then people will notice that the Republicans (joined by a few Blue Dogs) are obstructing all attempts to do anything about the continued high unemployment. One of my bigger complaints about his administration is how it constantly does stuff behind the scenes, evaluating Congressional support before going public with their plans. They hear the threat of the filibuster and back off. This allows the Republicans to be obstructionist without being seen as such by most.
He should take a lesson from the standoff between Clinton and Gingrich that led to the repeated federal shutdowns. Gingrich was the one who came out looking like an obstructionist donkey. Perhaps he or someone else in the administration doesn't think it's appropriate for the President to get involved in legislative bickering, I don't know, but whatever the reason it's doing much more harm than any of the stuff you and Gaspar are whining about.
And Conan, if business won't spend their cash, all we can do, short of forcing them to do so, which I think none of us want, is spend it ourselves. Private sector spending won't increase magically. However, increasing demand through stimulus will create demand, thus enticing businesses to invest in themselves with the cash they have on hand. Keynesian economics works, no matter how much you want to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "I'M NOT LISTENING". It's like you refuse to accept historical fact. We're seeing a repeat of 1937.
Quote from: nathanm on September 03, 2010, 09:36:18 AM
Good, then, that he's been one of the strongest champions in Washington for extended unemployment benefits.
There's some speculation that he's going to announce an economic program sometime in the next week. I hope so. Perhaps then people will notice that the Republicans (joined by a few Blue Dogs) are obstructing all attempts to do anything about the continued high unemployment. One of my bigger complaints about his administration is how it constantly does stuff behind the scenes, evaluating Congressional support before going public with their plans. They hear the threat of the filibuster and back off. This allows the Republicans to be obstructionist without being seen as such by most.
He should take a lesson from the standoff between Clinton and Gingrich that led to the repeated federal shutdowns. Gingrich was the one who came out looking like an obstructionist donkey. Perhaps he or someone else in the administration doesn't think it's appropriate for the President to get involved in legislative bickering, I don't know, but whatever the reason it's doing much more harm than any of the stuff you and Gaspar are whining about.
And Conan, if business won't spend their cash, all we can do, short of forcing them to do so, which I think none of us want, is spend it ourselves. Private sector spending won't increase magically. However, increasing demand through stimulus will create demand, thus enticing businesses to invest in themselves with the cash they have on hand. Keynesian economics works, no matter how much you want to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "I'M NOT LISTENING". It's like you refuse to accept historical fact. We're seeing a repeat of 1937.
On that note:
QuoteObama calls on Congress to pass small business jobs bill, which has been blocked by top Republicans
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/03/obama-calls-for-improving-small-business-climate/ (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/03/obama-calls-for-improving-small-business-climate/)
Nathan, John Maynard Keynes never created a job nor ran a small business. Economic theorists are no different than physicists like Steven Hawking. They work in a world of theories which aren't infallible and are ever-changing.
I agree, we can make a change by increasing our own discretionary spending. I'm simply choosing not to at the moment as my income is pretty far off right now from the last two years but shows signs it will increase in the next two quarters. I still will be saving more than usual for a variety of reasons: for one, I can't predict what three or four quarters ahead will look like, next year I will have two kids in college (thank God for only one year of dual tuition), and I'm moving out of my acqusition years into seriously socking back more for retirement years.
Quoting Townsend's article, I'm hearing good things in this speech. He's not blaming Bush, he's highlighting things I like to hear: more private sector jobs being created, the rise in U/E numbers is more people going off gov't payroll, the best is yet to come. Kudos, Mr. President.
One troubling issue I see with this bill is the notion of borrowing our way to prosperity. I'm not comfortable with doubling what business owners can borrow mainly because that's what people were doing with mortgages. I need to read the contents of the bill to see what the major issue with the GOP. If it's another sausage-packed pig, the Democrats are just as much to blame if it can't get moving forward. One bill, one intent, no bullshit like throwing a wedge issue in there like breast cancer research funds or mental health benefits for veterans.
From Townsend:
"He directly accused Republicans of blocking the $55 billion legislation package. Senate Democrats are hoping to OK the package and get it to the president's desk well before November's midterm elections.
Among the provisions in the bill are loan enhancements that would double what small business owners can borrow to expand their companies, as well as billions in tax-cut extensions.
"It is paid for," the president said. "It will not add one dime to our deficit."
Obama said it took years to create the country's economic problems, and it will take years to right them.
He said, however, that he wants "all Americans to remind themselves there are better days ahead" and that the United States remains the world leader in innovation, discovery and entrepreneurship.
"There's no quick fix for the worst recession since the Great Depression," he said.
There are signs the economy is improving, though. He said August saw 67,000 private sector jobs created, while official July numbers indicated 107,000 private sector jobs were created.
In contrast, the latest unemployment numbers show joblessness rose from 9.5 percent to 9.6 percent last month, and the economy lost 54,000 jobs overall. The job loss was attributed to the decline in temporary Census Bureau positions.
To "break the back of this recession," Obama said, more steps are needed, including the small business legislation, extending tax cuts for the middle class and directing investments to areas where job-creation potential is the highest.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 03, 2010, 10:19:37 AM
Nathan, John Maynard Keynes never created a job nor ran a small business. Economic theorists are no different than physicists like Steven Hawking. They work in a world of theories which aren't infallible and are ever-changing.
...
One troubling issue I see with this bill is the notion of borrowing our way to prosperity. I'm not comfortable with doubling what business owners can borrow mainly because that's what people were doing with mortgages. I need to read the contents of the bill to see what the major issue with the GOP. If it's another sausage-packed pig, the Democrats are just as much to blame if it can't get moving forward. One bill, one intent, no bullshit like throwing a wedge issue in there like breast cancer research funds or mental health benefits for veterans.
Conan, most businesspeople have no concept of economic theory. Economic theories are testable and have been tested. Do you really think that listening to economists when you want to know about the economy is a bad idea? What you wrote is the equivalent of saying that gravity is just a theory, despite it having a strong effect on our daily lives.
Responsible borrowing isn't an issue. Businesses need money to expand, and banks aren't giving much of it out. Let's use Gaspar's 3 Guys products as an example. He previously posted that they are unable to put product in all the Reasor's stores because it would require about $50,000 to produce enough product, which they do not have. Given that it market tested so well, it seems like it would be reasonable to borrow the $50,000 and jump start sales. The extra sales would likely more than outweigh any interest paid.
Part of the problem in real estate is the constantly repeated mantra that "they're not making any more of it" to bolster the idea that real estate prices will always increase. Obviously, that's not a correct conclusion, as has been shown many times throughout history. When people disassociate from reality, it causes problems. Debt isn't really the issue. Alan Greenspan once called the phenomenon "irrational exuberance," and this is one of the most free marketeer people walking the earth. Even he recognizes that sometimes the market gets it wrong because its participants aren't acting rationally.
Combine that with the misaligned incentives that still exist in the mortgage market and the inability of most organizations to look beyond next quarter and it's quite clear how we got the real estate market we did.
Quote from: nathanm on September 03, 2010, 11:26:08 AM
Conan, most businesspeople have no concept of economic theory. Economic theories are testable and have been tested. Do you really think that listening to economists when you want to know about the economy is a bad idea? What you wrote is the equivalent of saying that gravity is just a theory, despite it having a strong effect on our daily lives.
Responsible borrowing isn't an issue. Businesses need money to expand, and banks aren't giving much of it out. Let's use Gaspar's 3 Guys products as an example. He previously posted that they are unable to put product in all the Reasor's stores because it would require about $50,000 to produce enough product, which they do not have. Given that it market tested so well, it seems like it would be reasonable to borrow the $50,000 and jump start sales. The extra sales would likely more than outweigh any interest paid.
Part of the problem in real estate is the constantly repeated mantra that "they're not making any more of it" to bolster the idea that real estate prices will always increase. Obviously, that's not a correct conclusion, as has been shown many times throughout history. When people disassociate from reality, it causes problems. Debt isn't really the issue. Alan Greenspan once called the phenomenon "irrational exuberance," and this is one of the most free marketeer people walking the earth. Even he recognizes that sometimes the market gets it wrong because its participants aren't acting rationally.
Combine that with the misaligned incentives that still exist in the mortgage market and the inability of most organizations to look beyond next quarter and it's quite clear how we got the real estate market we did.
Most business people have no concept of economic theory? Where do you keep coming up with this stuff? That's as bad as saying illegal immigrants don't harm anyone but themselves when they cross the border.
Economic theory doesn't take into account human behavior as business owners and consumers. It's not as simple as setting a pallet of new $100 bills in a mall parking lot and everyone taking a share of it spending the money at the mall. If economic theory were finite and had predictable outcomes, we would not be in the mess we are right now. The steps put in place to get us here were not intended to make the economy fail.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 03, 2010, 11:43:56 AM
The steps put in place to get us here were not intended to make the economy fail.
But they had that predictable effect, as always happens when incentives aren't aligned with sound economic theory. There are places where economics breaks down, but we're not in that situation. Not even close.
And yes, if more businesspeople understood economic theory, they'd not be so focused on next quarter. They wouldn't collectively lay off millions of people and then sit around scratching their heads wondering why nobody is buying their stuff. Most businesses fail in under five years. Seriously. That's largely due to a lack of understanding of economics (and business in general).
Conan said;
Wrong answer. We don't need a stimulus to get the wheels rolling again. Cash is out there, it's sitting idle. People who run corporations and small business want inspiration and confidence that the worst is behind us and they will start spending money again.
Yep, that is for sure! We put a trillion dollars into big banks and they are leaving it sit idle - NOT loaning to small business to try to get things moving again. Now THERE was an inspired "investment" - directly due to George Bush, the ripples of which will continue for decades.
Vast majority of illegals not only don't harm anyone, but bring a very positive effect to your standard of living. Just because "blank-out" Jan Brewer and the Arizonians don't really understand economics, doesn't mean everyone doesn't.
The government is doing now what has been done successfully for 80 years, during our downturns. And the 'economy' is improving. This time I am skeptical about really good results because of the way we have shipped jobs overseas for 30 years. Jobs won't be coming back for a long, long time. You cannot have an economy without manufacturing - and 9% of the economy in manufacturing ain't enough. We are screwed.
Looks like the poverty rate in the U.S. is on a record pace:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100911/ap_on_bi_ge/us_poverty_in_america
I am curious, which charities that provide services for the impoverished do the folks at TNF donate?
I give to the Day Center for the Homeless. There are plenty of places that offer a bed at night, but this one gives the homeless support during the day.
I also contribute to the Tulsa Food bank and have a relative who works there and have volunteered there myself.
Thanks for asking.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 12, 2010, 04:55:06 PM
I give to the Day Center for the Homeless. There are plenty of places that offer a bed at night, but this one gives the homeless support during the day.
I also contribute to the Tulsa Food bank and have a relative who works there and have volunteered there myself.
Thanks for asking.
Just need to know what is local here in town. Most of my donations go to disease research, food for the poor, pro-life, veterans groups, domestic violence shelters, and Catholic Charities.
Sounds like the United Way.
Salvation Army is my favorite. You all probably guessed that already, since I work them into a discussion whenever possible.
There are an almost infinite number of places to donate to or work with. The need is ongoing and constant One must pace oneself to avoid "donor burnout" with either money or time.
Am very proud of grandchild who is continuing the tradition. This weekend the Union school ROTC spent some time at the food bank working for a few hours. Unfortunately, they lost to Jenks Friday night! No good deed goes unpunished, huh?
I also know one TNFer who does great work for MS charities. Nice to see some folks here getting things done to help those suffering.
What this leader of Home Depot is saying is what I have been trying to say for years now:
Reminds me, our "CEO" is going to be on CNBC for a town hall Monday night to talk to us "shareholders"
Quote from: Conan71 on September 17, 2010, 03:48:01 PM
Reminds me, our "CEO" is going to be on CNBC for a town hall Monday night to talk to us "shareholders"
Here's what Marcus said about our national CEO and his crew:
Quote from: guido911 on September 17, 2010, 04:37:27 PM
Here's what Marcus said about our national CEO and his crew:
Kind of crazy how everything he said pertains 100% to CEOs. I'm not saying he isn't wrong in what he says. Just listen though, its explains just about every CEO.
Quote from: Trogdor on September 17, 2010, 06:06:36 PM
Kind of crazy how everything he said pertains 100% to CEOs. I'm not saying he isn't wrong in what he says. Just listen though, its explains just about every CEO.
I assume you are excluding Bernie Marcus given that he was one of the
founders of Home Depot
Quote from: Trogdor on September 17, 2010, 06:06:36 PM
Kind of crazy how everything he said pertains 100% to CEOs. I'm not saying he isn't wrong in what he says. Just listen though, its explains just about every CEO.
Except CEO's are still charged with the successful operation of an entire company and ultimately responsible for their employees.
Many tenured professors have never worked off campus since they started post-grad nor have they run anything remotely close to a corporation, and they live under the assumption the rest of the world operates like the idealistic little academic world they occupy. To them it's all theories and suppositions. They have limited responsibility and are usually protected from negative impact of their actions. CEO's answer to shareholders and a board of directors.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 20, 2010, 12:49:53 PM
Except CEO's are still charged with the successful operation of an entire company and ultimately responsible for their employees.
Many tenured professors have never worked off campus since they started post-grad nor have they run anything remotely close to a corporation, and they live under the assumption the rest of the world operates like the idealistic little academic world they occupy. To them it's all theories and suppositions. They have limited responsibility and are usually protected from negative impact of their actions. CEO's answer to shareholders and a board of directors.
If by "answer" you mean if they do a bad job they will get fired early, bought out, get a pension for life a giant bonus. Then move onto the next company who needs a CEO with "experience".
Also, his claim that Obama is surrounded solely by academics is simply not true. Personally, I prefer there to be some balance between the corporate-types (like Geithner) and the academic-types (like Warren). The wall-streeters, for all their whining, have had his ear since day one. They're just pissed he doesn't agree with them 100%.
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2010, 01:25:42 PM
Also, his claim that Obama is surrounded solely by academics is simply not true. Personally, I prefer there to be some balance between the corporate-types (like Geithner) and the academic-types (like Warren). The wall-streeters, for all their whining, have had his ear since day one. They're just pissed he doesn't agree with them 100%.
Marcus was talking about his perceived negative attacks in Washington (and you incidentally) against small business owners and those that create wealth/jobs. If you ever created a freakin job Nate, you would understand.
Quote from: guido911 on September 20, 2010, 02:17:41 PM
Marcus was talking about his perceived negative attacks in Washington (and you incidentally) against small business owners and those that create wealth/jobs. If you ever created a freakin job Nate, you would understand.
Nobody is attacking small business owners (aside perhaps from some banks) except in the fantasy land inhabited by the right wingers and their hangers-on. Why don't you join us in the real world where they've gotten repeated tax breaks and we're staring a large loan program in the face to help offset the ongoing stinginess of most of our banks?
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2010, 02:31:49 PM
Nobody is attacking small business owners (aside perhaps from some banks) except in the fantasy land inhabited by the right wingers and their hangers-on. Why don't you join us in the real world where they've gotten repeated tax breaks and we're staring a large loan program in the face to help offset the ongoing stinginess of most of our banks?
Really, how in the he11 do you know that? Are you a small business owner who files his/her taxes as an individual and thus one of those evil $250k folks? Will you be having to 1099 all purchases in excess of $600? My guess is your answer is a big fat "NO"!
Guido= >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(
Quote from: guido911 on September 20, 2010, 02:48:21 PM
Really, how in the he11 do you know that? Are you a small business owner who files his/her taxes as an individual and thus one of those evil $250k folks? Will you be having to 1099 all purchases in excess of $600? My guess is your answer is a big fat "NO"!
You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that one pays income tax on gross receipts.
For some reason they included Non-profits in this requirement.
Non-profits are not used to collecting tax ID numbers from the companies they do business with. This will require a whole new accounting structure for such organizations and make the process much more expensive.
They also increased the penalty for failing to report a vendor/supplier from $50 to $250 per incident, with the maximum penalty increased from $250,000 to $1.5 million.
I guess they have to fund this healthcare thing somehow.
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2010, 04:16:12 PM
You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that one pays income tax on gross receipts.
Where did you glean that from his post? I sure didn't catch that. Out of clever come backs?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 20, 2010, 05:12:02 PM
Where did you glean that from his post? I sure didn't catch that. Out of clever come backs?
He seemed to be saying that businesses small enough that the owner uses an S Corp or pass-through LLC will be significantly impacted by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. The only way I can see him being so worked up about it is if he thinks that having receipts of $250,000 a year would be enough to fall into that tax bracket. More realistically, very few small businesses with under a $1,000,000 a year in receipts will be impacted by this. Even then depreciation, prior losses, and so on will further reduce net income for most companies.
This isn't screwing the little guy. Moreover, the little guy has already gotten a lot of help and will be receiving more. Guido's entire premise is that single owner small businesses are getting screwed, when that's demonstrably not the case.
They're more likely to get screwed by AMT than anything else.
Yeah, if you make $300,000 you pay about $1500 more. The 1099 is way worse than the tax increase for actual small businesses.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 29, 2010, 11:33:50 AM
What if people are finally learning a lesson about a binge and purge economy and everyone (individuals and corporations) is simply starting to learn to live a more austere lifestyle? What would happen in a scenario like that where unemployment remains in the 10% range (or 16% if you want to count those no longer looking for work).
Sounds like socialism...
Quote from: SXSW on September 21, 2010, 09:04:35 AM
Sounds like socialism...
You know, it's funny that we should be so scared of socialism when the bottom 80% of earners controls 15% of the capital in the country (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html). That's about as far from socialism (workers owning the means of production) as it can get.
Maybe the correct word is oligarchy?
Quote from: SXSW on September 21, 2010, 09:04:35 AM
Sounds like socialism...
I'm not sure what about austere lifestyles and permanent 10% U/E sounds like socialism, but I'll bite. Care to explain?
Quote from: Trogdor on September 21, 2010, 08:56:11 AM
Yeah, if you make $300,000 you pay about $1500 more. The 1099 is way worse than the tax increase for actual small businesses.
I agree with that point (benefit of doubt as to the $1500), but these business are getting both the increase and the 1099.
Quote from: guido911 on September 22, 2010, 01:40:13 PM
I agree with that point (benefit of doubt as to the $1500), but these business are getting both the increase and the 1099.
33% to 36% on their income over $250k (assuming no other loss of deductions) would be $50,000 * .03 = $1500. Or as a Republican would say ;D. $50,000 * .03 = 9,000 Jobs.
Quote from: guido911 on September 22, 2010, 01:40:13 PM
I agree with that point (benefit of doubt as to the $1500), but these business are getting both the increase and the 1099.
I almost only do transactions over $600. Think about going to Target and having to give the cashier or you give a 1099. Or the thousands upon thousands of customers that have to send in a 1099 to be legal.
Quote from: nathanm on September 20, 2010, 01:25:42 PM
Also, his claim that Obama is surrounded solely by academics is simply not true. Personally, I prefer there to be some balance between the corporate-types (like Geithner) and the academic-types (like Warren). The wall-streeters, for all their whining, have had his ear since day one. They're just pissed he doesn't agree with them 100%.
Sorry, but I just caught this. . .the only corporate job Geithner ever had was for 3 years back in the 80s working for Henry Kissenger. Since that short and pitiful foray into the private sector, Geithner has always worked for government. He's about as corporate as Lady Gaga! :D
.
The resemblance is uncanny...
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__8OGKc9alps/ScnL6589sTI/AAAAAAAACQI/VgTrVaboEgE/s400/eraserhead+geithner.jpg)
Quote from: Trogdor on September 22, 2010, 01:47:05 PM
33% to 36% on their income over $250k (assuming no other loss of deductions) would be $50,000 * .03 = $1500. Or as a Republican would say ;D. $50,000 * .03 = 9,000 Jobs.
No wonder people think Keynsian Economics work. When you use .03 for 33% instead of .33 for tax purposes it lowers taxes. Heck, raise my tax to 90% as long as I can use .09 for a multiplier (instead of .90).
33% of $50,000 is more like $16,500 than $1500.
Pesky
flyspot decimal points.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 22, 2010, 02:27:13 PM
Pesky flyspot decimal points.
He was calculating the increase in tax caused by raising marginal rate 3% on $50,000 of income.
Quote from: nathanm on September 22, 2010, 03:17:17 PM
He was calculating the increase in tax caused by raising marginal rate 3% on $50,000 of income.
Pesky English language.
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110775/time-to-stop-worshiping-small-businesses
"The Small Business Administration says any manufacturing company with fewer than 500 employees is "small." In other sectors, a company can have annual revenue as high as $35.5 million and still be considered "small."
By that definition, about half of U.S. workers are employed by "small" companies. If you define "small" as companies with fewer than 100 employees, small businesses employ about a third of U.S. workers."
So 35.5 million in sales and 499 employees is small. So all of this, raising taxes on "small" businesses is starting to make sense.
Quote from: Trogdor on September 23, 2010, 09:58:00 AM
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110775/time-to-stop-worshiping-small-businesses
"The Small Business Administration says any manufacturing company with fewer than 500 employees is "small." In other sectors, a company can have annual revenue as high as $35.5 million and still be considered "small."
By that definition, about half of U.S. workers are employed by "small" companies. If you define "small" as companies with fewer than 100 employees, small businesses employ about a third of U.S. workers."
So 35.5 million in sales and 499 employees is small. So all of this, raising taxes on "small" businesses is starting to make sense.
Manufacturing companies with fewer than 500 employees?
Quote from: guido911 on September 23, 2010, 10:11:54 AM
Manufacturing companies with fewer than 500 employees?
True, he did qualify his statement with manufacturing.
Here is the definition list, some are 1000 employees.
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf (http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf)
Restaurants are 7 million a year in revenue until they stop being small :P So all of blue dome combined is 1 small business :D
500 employees or 7 million in revenue seems to be avg small business threshold.
Quote from: Trogdor on September 23, 2010, 10:18:27 AM
True, he did qualify his statement with manufacturing.
Here is the definition list, some are 1000 employees.
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf (http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf)
Restaurants are 7 million a year in revenue until they stop being small :P So all of blue dome combined is 1 small business :D
500 employees or 7 million in revenue seems to be avg small business threshold.
Funny. I saw in that chart that law offices are raking in $7M, as are dance companies
Quote from: Trogdor on September 23, 2010, 10:18:27 AM
True, he did qualify his statement with manufacturing.
Here is the definition list, some are 1000 employees.
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf (http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf)
Restaurants are 7 million a year in revenue until they stop being small :P So all of blue dome combined is 1 small business :D
500 employees or 7 million in revenue seems to be avg small business threshold.
Size standards as identified on the SBA site were largely adopted for preferential treatment on doing business with the government. That's why they vary from industry to industry.