Thought I'd start a new thread for this evening's address.
This morning, Jay Carney said somthing very interesting. He told Faux News that "Any economist worth their PHD will tell you that tax cuts create jobs." So it seems that he's also framing the president's speech tonight to soften the blow of tax cuts.
The estimated number has also climbed to $400 Billion in tax cuts and stimulus projects revolving around bridges and road work. I find that strange since there is still hundreds of billions left from the last stimulus that has yet to be spent on these "shovel-ready" projects.
The administration is now saying that tonight's speech is not going to be the plan, it's going to be more of a framework to be followed up by a second speech after congress returns from their 5 day recess. A list of initiatives is gong to be delivered to congress before they go on break, and then the president will go over those upon his/congresses return.
So now I am a bit discouraged by the prospect that we are simply going to get more of the same. Porkulus II perhaps. And why, when the nation is facing a crisis must the president, congress and those responsible for the economic uncertainty get license to drag things out through vacations, golf outings and recesses?
Best thing Congress could do is remain in session, complete and approve any initiatives and deliver to the president's desk so that he can sign something after his Sunday round.
Out of curiosity does anyone think this thread will lead to anything constructive or is it just an attempt to throw out opinions and attacks on anything the author disagrees with?
I'll take my answer off the air.
gaspar has an Obama insult de jour.
Nothing to see here.
QuoteThought I'd start a new thread for this evening's address.
This morning, Jay Carney said somthing very interesting. He told Faux News that "Any economist worth their PHD will tell you that tax cuts create jobs." So it seems that he's also framing the president's speech tonight to soften the blow of tax cuts.
The estimated number has also climbed to $400 Billion in tax cuts and stimulus projects revolving around bridges and road work. I find that strange since there is still hundreds of billions left from the last stimulus that has yet to be spent on these "shovel-ready" projects.
Yes, all the "shovel ready projects" that were blocked in some way by the Republicans.
QuoteThe administration is now saying that tonight's speech is not going to be the plan, it's going to be more of a framework to be followed up by a second speech after congress returns from their 5 day recess. A list of initiatives is gong to be delivered to congress before they go on break, and then the president will go over those upon his/congresses return.
So in other words it will be nothing but part three (or is it part four?) of Obama's jobs plan that we have been hearing about since the campaign in 2008.
QuoteSo now I am a bit discouraged by the prospect that we are simply going to get more of the same. Porkulus II perhaps. And why, when the nation is facing a crisis must the president, congress and those responsible for the economic uncertainty get license to drag things out through vacations, golf outings and recesses?
Best thing Congress could do is remain in session, complete and approve any initiatives and deliver to the president's desk so that he can sign something after his Sunday round.
I call it his re-election campaign.
John Boehner to House Republicans: Please Attend Obama's Speech (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/john-boehner-house-republicans-please-attend-obama-speech-152557252.html)
Quote"Every member of the House of Representatives should attend President Barack Obama's address on job creation tonight, House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday in response to reports that several in his caucus are planning to skip the speech.
"He is the president of the United States and I believe that all members ought to be here to do this. Doesn't mean they're going to," Boehner told reporters Thursday morning after a conference meeting with fellow Republicans. "Remember, I'm just the speaker. There are 434 colleagues who have their own opinions and they're entitled to them. But as an institution, the president is coming at our invitation. We ought to be respectful, and we ought to welcome him."
Republican lawmakers in both chambers, including Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, who said he would attend an NFL kickoff party instead, have announced they won't attend.
The speech, during which Obama is expected outline a proposal the White House says will reduce the nation's unemployment rate, has been a point of contention from the moment administration officials announced the president's plans. The White House initially requested to speak to Congress on the same night as a Republican presidential debate (held Wednesday evening), a request that Boehner denied. The parties agreed to hold the speech Thursday instead.
Republicans also announced that they would not prepare an on-air response to the president's proposal immediately following the speech, a decision House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, said was "disrespectful."
"Listen, this is not the State of the Union address," Boehner said when asked Thursday why Republicans would not give an official televised response. "The American people shouldn't be forced to watch some politician they don't want to listen to. And frankly, most of them would rather watch the football game." (The Green Bay Packers are scheduled to play the New Orleans Saints in the first game of the NFL season immediately after Obama's speech.)
Lawmakers are expected to flood Statutory Hall after the speech tonight--the room in the Capitol building next to the House chamber where Obama will deliver his address--to give their own responses.
"I think it's a more appropriate and respectful way to go forward," Boehner said.
Such is life in an
democracy idiocracy.
I figured that most Repubs, would be meeting with Rand Paul yesterday and today as a reason to not attend.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/07/rand-paul-calls-for-no-confidence-vote-on-geithner/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/07/rand-paul-calls-for-no-confidence-vote-on-geithner/)
On the contrary. This is President Obama's opportunity to shine. All we know right now is quips of information coming out of the White House, and media noise.
President Obama may take this opportunity to embrace the economic crisis and propose actions that will increase confidence, and make it easier for the private sector to engage some of the money they have been hording into increased production. If the money is there, as both democrats and republicans claim, the only obstacle to moving that money into the market is confidence. Right?
The first stimulus did little to move that private sector money because it, as well as the ancillary injections of capital, did little to increase private sector confidence in the administration's ability to maintain economic stability. On the contrary, because the original stimulus represented a disjointed collection of obscure programs and infrastructural spending, unemployment went from 7.5% to almost 10%. The stimulus also included additional injections of capital in the form of payroll tax decreases that should have also had a more profound impact, but consumers stopped consuming in the face of growing unemployment and the chance that they might need that capital to survive in the new economy. Businesses horded cash and individuals horded cash. The public bought gold, and companies invested in strategies to keep their staff at a minimum by increasing efficiency. The Keynesian approach worked exactly as Mises, Hume, Reagan, and the Austrian school anticipated it would. The economy began to cystate.
The good news for President Obama is that business is in a holding pattern, ready to pounce the moment confidence is restored. He has a loaded starting gun.
All the president needs to do is focus on the job creator rather than just the job. If he's willing, he could take 2 minutes in his speech to promise to the American public that he is going to eliminate the obstacles that job creators are concerned about. 2 Minutes of the president's time, could result in the spark that turns the whole economy around. Without spending a single penny of our money, in a single paragraph of his speech he could fundamentally change the direction of the economy, and the immediate response from the private sector would force the senate to acquiesce to his leadership. We could wake up tomorrow to frantic optimism in the private sector.
or
He could propose new immediate taxes, extend unemployment, build more ADA crosswalks in Hulbert and Lost City that don't connect to any sidewalks. He could extend payroll tax deductions and leave your paycheck unchanged from last week. He could offer an extra incentive of $2,000 for your employer to hire extra staff. He could add more money to the existing unspent funds to replace bridges and rail roads. He could attempt to fund these efforts with eminent tax increases in 2013 or 2014. All fine Keynesian ideas that will produce the exact same results in the minds of the job creators. We could wake up tomorrow to the exact same feeling we had after his first stimulus speech over 2 years ago.
"My fellow Americans, it's obvious we are still hurting for jobs in this country (I'm set for life, the rest of you are pretty much on your own to figure out how to get a job). I've spent a lot of time contemplating this problem even when I've been on vacation (My celebrity friends I hang out with don't have a clue how a job is created either).
"U.S. companies and their executives (ahem, the evil rich) simply are not willing to take the risks necessary right now to create more jobs, so we have to assume that risk for them and take the reins on creating jobs through asset reapportionment (that's wealth re-distribution for those of you who listen to Limbaugh). Companies and investors are sitting on too much cash, they don't have a right to do that while millions starve looking for work. They would rather give that money to the re-election campaigns of their wealthy Republican friends in Congress. Well, I'm going to stop that. I'm going to take that money and use it to extend unemployment benefits, give unions more road projects, and loan money to all sorts of poor risks in alternative energy. Then I'm going to order another census in the spring so we can inflate the jobs numbers for a few months.
"When all that fails, I'm going to ask you to look back at the last four years of my administration and realize this was ALL President Bush's fault.
"Thank you and good night."
Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 01:00:08 PM
On the contrary. This is President Obama's opportunity to shine. All we know right now is quips of information coming out of the White House, and media noise.
President Obama may take this opportunity to embrace the economic crisis and propose actions that will increase confidence, and make it easier for the private sector to engage some of the money they have been hording into increased production. If the money is there, as both democrats and republicans claim, the only obstacle to moving that money into the market is confidence. Right?
The first stimulus did little to move that private sector money because it, as well as the ancillary injections of capital, did little to increase private sector confidence in the administration's ability to maintain economic stability. On the contrary, because the original stimulus represented a disjointed collection of obscure programs and infrastructural spending, unemployment went from 7.5% to almost 10%. The stimulus also included additional injections of capital in the form of payroll tax decreases that should have also had a more profound impact, but consumers stopped consuming in the face of growing unemployment and the chance that they might need that capital to survive in the new economy. Businesses horded cash and individuals horded cash. The public bought gold, and companies invested in strategies to keep their staff at a minimum by increasing efficiency. The Keynesian approach worked exactly as Mises, Hume, Reagan, and the Austrian school anticipated it would. The economy began to cystate.
The good news for President Obama is that business is in a holding pattern, ready to pounce the moment confidence is restored. He has a loaded starting gun.
All the president needs to do is focus on the job creator rather than just the job. If he's willing, he could take 2 minutes in his speech to promise to the American public that he is going to eliminate the obstacles that job creators are concerned about. 2 Minutes of the president's time, could result in the spark that turns the whole economy around. Without spending a single penny of our money, in a single paragraph of his speech he could fundamentally change the direction of the economy, and the immediate response from the private sector would force the senate to acquiesce to his leadership. We could wake up tomorrow to frantic optimism in the private sector.
or
He could propose new immediate taxes, extend unemployment, build more ADA crosswalks in Hulbert and Lost City that don't connect to any sidewalks. He could extend payroll tax deductions and leave your paycheck unchanged from last week. He could offer an extra incentive of $2,000 for your employer to hire extra staff. He could add more money to the existing unspent funds to replace bridges and rail roads. He could attempt to fund these efforts with eminent tax increases in 2013 or 2014. All fine Keynesian ideas that will produce the exact same results in the minds of the job creators. We could wake up tomorrow to the exact same feeling we had after his first stimulus speech over 2 years ago.
None of this is worth a diddlydamn if the opposition party refuses to show up and help govern.
Quote from: we vs us on September 08, 2011, 01:16:11 PM
None of this is worth a diddlydamn if the opposition party refuses to show up and help govern.
Perhaps that's what he's counting on. After all, he could have given this speech two weeks ago when he told us he was going to give this speech. A joint session of congress was not warranted (nor is their precedent for it), unless of course he intends to make this a campaign exposition speech. The presence/absence of members of congress simply offers more points of blame for him.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 01:22:04 PM
Perhaps that's what he's counting on. After all, he could have given this speech two weeks ago when he told us he was going to give this speech. A joint session of congress was not warranted (nor is their precedent for it), unless of course he intends to make this a campaign exposition speech. The presence/absence of members of congress simply offers more points of blame for him.
Why that manipulative bastard...
Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 01:22:04 PM
Perhaps that's what he's counting on. After all, he could have given this speech two weeks ago when he told us he was going to give this speech. A joint session of congress was not warranted (nor is their precedent for it), unless of course he intends to make this a campaign exposition speech. The presence/absence of members of congress simply offers more points of blame for him.
Are you serious? That somehow the Republican's refusal to attend can be blamed on Obama? Because . . . . why? How does that work exactly?
Quote from: Townsend on September 08, 2011, 01:28:33 PM
Why that manipulative bastard...
From accounts around here he is neither smart enough or courageous enough to have
screwed manipulated those dim bulbs.
Quote from: we vs us on September 08, 2011, 01:31:34 PM
Are you serious? That somehow the Republican's refusal to attend can be blamed on Obama? Because . . . . why? How does that work exactly?
No, the other way around. President Obama seems to thrive on blame. If he can illustrate that it's the Republicans that are unwilling to play, he can deflect the heat by blaming any future economic failure on them.
He could be just setting the stage.
Quote from: we vs us on September 08, 2011, 01:31:34 PM
Are you serious? That somehow the Republican's refusal to attend can be blamed on Obama? Because . . . . why? How does that work exactly?
Because they wanted to go watch the game at Buffalo Wild Wings and the president scheduled the speech to intentionally conflict with those plans, silly.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 08, 2011, 01:34:01 PM
Because they wanted to go watch the game at Buffalo Wild Wings and the president scheduled the speech to intentionally conflict with those plans, silly.
I wonder if that will have any impact on the content of his speech?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 01:35:17 PM
I wonder if that will have any impact on the content of his speech?
"Let me throw a 'HAIL MARIA!' at you..."
Quote from: we vs us on September 08, 2011, 01:16:11 PM
None of this is worth a diddlydamn if the opposition party refuses to show up and help govern.
I think Obama should start his speech off declaring Marshal Law and telling the GOP what IS going to be done.
Kinda what Bush/Cheney did with 9/11 reaction.
I can't link from my phone, but check out what the longshoremen in Seatle are up to. Gotta love those unions!
So, Gibson Guitar CEO Henry Juszkiewicz will be U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn's guest at President Barack Obama's speech on job creation tonight to a joint session of Congress. There are rumors that other Congress People will be bringing CEO's as guests.
Again, here is an excellent opportunity for the President to look job creators in the eye and say "What can I do to make business better?" "What can I do to give you the confidence to expand?"
I wonder how they would answer?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 02:43:17 PM
So, Gibson Guitar CEO Henry Juszkiewicz will be U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn's guest at President Barack Obama's speech on job creation tonight to a joint session of Congress. There are rumors that other Congress People will be bringing CEO's as guests.
Again, here is an excellent opportunity for the President to look job creators in the eye and say "What can I do to make business better?" "What can I do to give you the confidence to expand?"
I wonder how they would answer?
I want to create new jobs rather than expand the now existing corporate domination and their oligarchy...
Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 02:43:17 PM
So, Gibson Guitar CEO Henry Juszkiewicz will be U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn's guest at President Barack Obama's speech on job creation tonight to a joint session of Congress. There are rumors that other Congress People will be bringing CEO's as guests.
Again, here is an excellent opportunity for the President to look job creators in the eye and say "What can I do to make business better?" "What can I do to give you the confidence to expand?"
I wonder how they would answer?
Bigger bonuses ought to do it... right? Oh wait, we tried that:
The median bonus for S&P 500 chiefs was nearly $2.2 million last year, a 43.3 percent increase from 2009.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 08, 2011, 02:47:06 PM
I want to create new jobs rather than expand the now existing corporate domination and their oligarchy...
How?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 03:16:18 PM
How?
Well, I think tonight the Prez might finally unveil an infrastructure bank, non profit motivated public-private partnerships, to leverage private investment toward public improvement. When he marched out both the Chamber and the Unions to loosen and abandon clean air regs last week, it was an indication of his intent to unite even those who oppose each other on most issues in order make a growth strategy for good jobs, rebuilding the middle class, and improve our deteriorating infrastructure.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 08, 2011, 03:43:57 PM
Well, I think tonight the Prez might finally unveil an infrastructure bank, non profit motivated public-private partnerships, to leverage private investment toward public improvement. When he marched out both the Chamber and the Unions to loosen and abandon clean air regs last week, it was an indication of his intent to unite even those who oppose each other on most issues in order make a growth strategy for good jobs, rebuilding the middle class, and improve our deteriorating infrastructure.
You mean he is going to make job creation his first priority? Sounds awesome. Tell me more.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 08, 2011, 03:43:57 PM
Well, I think tonight the Prez might finally unveil an infrastructure bank, non profit motivated public-private partnerships, to leverage private investment toward public improvement. When he marched out both the Chamber and the Unions to loosen and abandon clean air regs last week, it was an indication of his intent to unite even those who oppose each other on most issues in order make a growth strategy for good jobs, rebuilding the middle class, and improve our deteriorating infrastructure.
If that's a reality, I like the approach. Why do you think it took so long for him to come up with this idea?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 08, 2011, 04:02:38 PM
If that's a reality, I like the approach. Why do you think it took so long for him to come up with this idea?
He's decided to make jobs his top priority?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 04:07:22 PM
He's decided to make jobs his top priority?
Well, ever since he got a watered down Healthcare initiative out of Congress Obummer had to find a replacement. It's election season....make hay.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 08, 2011, 04:48:58 PM
Well, ever since he got a watered down Healthcare initiative out of Congress Obummer had to find a replacement. It's election season....make hay.
Perhaps the same strategy would work then. Cancel the speech. Introduce the bill right before voting, and read it later.
Just pass it to see what's in it.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 08, 2011, 04:55:11 PM
Perhaps the same strategy would work then. Cancel the speech. Introduce the bill right before voting, and read it later.
Just pass it to see what's in it.
NO, FIRST the right wing militia makes up lies and then goes out to make everyone FEAR change....
Quit being silly.
Awesome speech! Probably the second best of his career (Healthcare speech was the best). Emotional, engaging, and there was a lot of common ground issues that Republicans can work with.
$447 in new spending, he says "is 100% paid for." I was thrilled about that, but kept asking HOW? Finally at the end of the speech he mentioned that the new spending was going to be added to the $1.5 trillion in spending that the new Deficit Reduction Panel is responsible for finding cuts for. pancakes? So, is he now using the new Deficit Reduction panel as his new blank check? That part is not going to fly.
Cutting payroll taxes by 50% is fantastic, but he may face opposition from his own party on this because once you do it, it's hard to reverse. He also mentioned larger incentives to hire unemployed workers, as he has before. This didn't work the first time because it was too small to offset the additional costs. Now he has introduced it again, but in almost the same breath promised increases in taxes on the same business owners. So that's ineffective.
I think there were several bullet points that Republicans can include in their plan, but we won't know until the president presents the list in 10 days or so. As we may recall, his healthcare bill outline speech preceded a 2,000 page bill that we learned had little resemblance to what he outlined. I am hopeful that there won't be as much bait and switch in this one.
1. Tax Cuts to Help America's Small Businesses Hire and Grow
• Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President's plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.
• A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President's plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).
• Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment.
• Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital.
2. Putting Workers Back on the Job While Rebuilding and Modernizing America
• A "Returning Heroes" hiring tax credit for veterans: This provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans.
• Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, while keeping cops and firefighters on the job.
• Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country, supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas.
• Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank, modernizing our roads, rail, airports and waterways while putting hundreds of thousands of workers back on the job.
• A New "Project Rebuild", which will put people to work rehabilitating homes, businesses and communities, leveraging private capital and scaling land banks and other public-private collaborations.
• Expanding access to high-speed wireless as part of a plan for freeing up the nation's spectrum.
3. Pathways Back to Work for Americans Looking for Jobs.
• The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years: As part of an extension of unemployment insurance to prevent 5 million Americans looking for work from losing their benefits, the President's plan includes innovative work-based reforms to prevent layoffs and give states greater flexibility
to use UI funds to best support job-seekers, including:
o Work-Sharing: UI for workers whose employers choose work-sharing over layoffs.
o A new "Bridge to Work" program: The plan builds on and improves innovative state programs
where those displaced take temporary, voluntary work or pursue on-the-job training.
o Innovative entrepreneurship and wage insurance programs: States will also be empowered to implement wage insurance to help reemploy older workers and programs that make it easier for unemployed workers to start their own businesses.
• A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.
• Prohibiting employers from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring.
• Expanding job opportunities for low-income youth and adults through a fund for successful approaches for subsidized employment, innovative training programs and summer/year-round jobs for youth.
4. Tax Relief for Every American Worker and Family
• Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year: The President's plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers payroll taxes in half in 2012 – providing a $1,500 tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security Trust Fund.
• Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today's near 4 percent interest rates, which can put more than $2,000 a year in a family's pocket.
5. Fully Paid for as Part of the President's Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan.
• To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President's broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy. So, it's not paid for at all, it's simply lumped onto the debt.
I think his delivery was awesome. I think Republicans heard a lot of things they can agree with him on. I think we will get a bill passed quickly that will include payroll tax deductions, and incentives for businesses to hire. I think we will get some spending but it will be paid for by additional spending cuts included in the actual bill, not just written up a additional deficit spending.
I also think the plan that comes out of congress will include actual reductions in regulation related to the energy sector and business growth incentives in the form of tax relief. I can only be hopeful that this will include a simplification of the current tax tables as the president mentioned. We still flitter around $4 a gallon for fuel, and much of that is artificial in the form of taxes, and regulatory expenses. For every 10 cents that you decrease the cost of gasoline, you add $17-$20 billion into the economy. If we can just lower the cost of gas by $2.50 we can add $425 billion into the economy. That would have a far more dramatic effect on economic growth.
Overall, I am pleased with his speech. I think he has come to learn many of the realities of economics and grown as a president. Lets hope the list he presents to Congress resembles this speech, and hope that he delivers it in plenty of time for everyone to read before they have to pass it.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 08, 2011, 02:47:06 PM
I want to create new jobs rather than expand the now existing corporate domination and their oligarchy...
You're starting to sound like Palen now. From today's New York Times:
She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a "permanent political class," drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called "corporate crony capitalism." Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).
In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties' tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation's capital.
Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.
"Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?" she said, referring to politicians. "It's because there's nothing in it for them. They've got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along."
Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.
Ms. Palin's third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.
"This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk," she said of the crony variety. She added: "It's the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It's a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America."
Quote from: Gaspar on September 09, 2011, 08:39:51 AM
You're starting to sound like Palen now. From today's New York Times:
The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.
"This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk," she said of the crony variety. She added: "It's the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It's a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America."
Umm, hate to break this to you but in Capitalism her "bad" capitalists are actually the really good capitalists. I think this socialistic view of capitalism isn't going to get her any votes. However, her "good capitalists" does follow the Republican misconception that because somebody makes more money it means they hire more people. What is the government going to do? Force companies to hire?
Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 09, 2011, 08:47:05 AM
Umm, hate to break this to you but in Capitalism her "bad" capitalists are actually the really good capitalists. I think this socialistic view of capitalism isn't going to get her any votes. However, her "good capitalists" does follow the Republican misconception that because somebody makes more money it means they hire more people. What is the government going to do? Force companies to hire?
Yeah, crazy huh?
Quote from: Gaspar on September 09, 2011, 08:52:31 AM
Yeah, crazy huh?
I know! Buying the government and making the most amount of money by whatever means necessary is what capitalism is all about. People who complain about companies that figure its cheaper to let people die than to fix a problem. That is what capitalism is!
Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 09, 2011, 08:54:13 AM
I know! Buying the government and making the most amount of money by whatever means necessary is what capitalism is all about. People who complain about companies that figure its cheaper to let people die than to fix a problem. That is what capitalism is!
Sounds like you really hate capitalism. Must be hard to live here.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 09, 2011, 08:57:06 AM
Sounds like you really hate capitalism. Must be hard to live here.
Huh? In my side business I have people ask me to lower my price so their children can have the gift they want (yeah right).
Real e-mails (people like to grumble that you are charging double MSRP even though they aren't going and haven't purchased it)
Her: "I bought the ring for 19.99 in the store. You are gouging people and it's ridiculous. It's also available at Borders for 24.99 and Hastings for 19.99. Your price makes no sense at all. "
Me: "Thank you for the extra sources"
Later she hit me with "With businessmen like you, no wonder our economy is the way it is."
I dare say I am a better capitalist than you.
If that's truly Palin talking (cite please?) she's come a long, weird way. A lot of that critique is standard lefty boilerplate. I wonder if she knows that . . .?
Quote from: we vs us on September 09, 2011, 09:09:35 AM
If that's truly Palin talking (cite please?) she's come a long, weird way. A lot of that critique is standard lefty boilerplate. I wonder if she knows that . . .?
She might have said Good Capitalist Good Bad Capitalist BAAAAD! Which is "she differentiated between good and bad capitalism, in that those that hire and those that buy policy".
Quote from: we vs us on September 09, 2011, 09:09:35 AM
If that's truly Palin talking (cite please?) she's come a long, weird way. A lot of that critique is standard lefty boilerplate. I wonder if she knows that . . .?
The amazing part is that it's in the NEW YORK TIMES, the very paper that has spent millions trying to destroy her.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1315569719-RpR5AuX40tZqZl8xOiUg7g
Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 09, 2011, 08:59:23 AM
Huh? In my side business I have people ask me to lower my price so their children can have the gift they want (yeah right).
Real e-mails (people like to grumble that you are charging double MSRP even though they aren't going and haven't purchased it)
Her: "I bought the ring for 19.99 in the store. You are gouging people and it's ridiculous. It's also available at Borders for 24.99 and Hastings for 19.99. Your price makes no sense at all. "
Me: "Thank you for the extra sources"
Later she hit me with "With businessmen like you, no wonder our economy is the way it is."
I dare say I am a better capitalist than you.
It just sounded like you were being very critical of capitalism as a whole in your posts above. Capitalism delivers a higher standard of living than any other economic system. I must have misunderstood you, if so, I apologize.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 09, 2011, 09:17:56 AM
It just sounded like you were being very critical of capitalism as a whole in your posts above. Capitalism delivers a higher standard of living than any other economic system. I must have misunderstood you, if so, I apologize.
It is what it is.. Its definitely not some form of morality as some try to assign to it. That somehow it "looks out" for anybody. Its all about making money. That is it. I believe back in the earlier days companies had some loyalty to employees as necessary to the growth of a company. Now employees are a necessary liablity that hopefully some day can be discarded completely. I just think the previous method is better for everybody. We move more and more away from it as time goes on. I mean the end game of capitalism is 1 company that owns everything.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2011%2F09%2F10%2Fus%2F10iht-currents10.html&ei=KyBqToyyLovEsQKio4S_Bg&usg=AFQjCNF3xwBoqY2t5UZZla_RSk60grrlqg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2011%2F09%2F10%2Fus%2F10iht-currents10.html&ei=KyBqToyyLovEsQKio4S_Bg&usg=AFQjCNF3xwBoqY2t5UZZla_RSk60grrlqg)
is this the article? I hate pay walls, if you search NYT through google and find it you dn't have to sign in (not sure if the link will work)
Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 09, 2011, 09:11:42 AM
Notice he says that she meant ______. She might have said Good Capitalist Good Bad Capitalist BAAAAD! Which is "she differentiated between good and bad capitalism, in that those that hire and those that buy policy".
Kind of on the side . . . I always think it's weird that we try to make those good/bad distinctions about participants in the economic system. Capitalism is amoral -- the only real judgement of any sort within the system is whether an entity is profitable or not. Within that framework, the megacorps in question have succeeded to the highest order. By capturing politicians and regulators, forcing loopholes into the tax structure, litigating regulation into oblivion, and setting up financial-corporate feedback loops . . . these are simply companies using market leverage to remain successful. Why are people surprised by this? Why is SARAH PALIN surprised by this?
EDIT: Essentially what Sheen said.
Quote from: we vs us on September 09, 2011, 09:25:06 AM
Kind of on the side . . . I always think it's weird that we try to make those good/bad distinctions about participants in the economic system. Capitalism is amoral -- the only real judgement of any sort within the system is whether an entity is profitable or not. Within that framework, the megacorps in question have succeeded to the highest order. By capturing politicians and regulators, forcing loopholes into the tax structure, litigating regulation into oblivion, and setting up financial-corporate feedback loops . . . these are simply companies using market leverage to remain successful. Why are people surprised by this? Why is SARAH PALIN surprised by this?
Now I see he quoted the article directly. I thought she wrote and opinion piece specifically and he paraphrased but those weren't his words.
Quote from: we vs us on September 09, 2011, 09:25:06 AM
Kind of on the side . . . I always think it's weird that we try to make those good/bad distinctions about participants in the economic system. Capitalism is amoral -- the only real judgement of any sort within the system is whether an entity is profitable or not. Within that framework, the megacorps in question have succeeded to the highest order. By capturing politicians and regulators, forcing loopholes into the tax structure, litigating regulation into oblivion, and setting up financial-corporate feedback loops . . . these are simply companies using market leverage to remain successful. Why are people surprised by this? Why is SARAH PALIN surprised by this?
Actually, a company doesn't need to be profitable. You can also do things like, take money from the city for the lofts, pay yourself a crap ton of money and then have the property forclosed on. You don't need to make money to make money.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 09, 2011, 09:25:57 AM
Now I see he quoted the article directly. I thought she wrote and opinion piece specifically and he paraphrased but those weren't his words.
I figured. But even if it's an accurate paraphrase (which I assume it is) she's jumped way out into left field.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 09, 2011, 09:27:37 AM
Actually, a company doesn't need to be profitable. You can also do things like, take money from the city for the lofts, pay yourself a crap ton of money and then have the property forclosed on. You don't need to make money to make money.
Well yes, but I include that as using whatever resources are around you -- including gov subsidies -- to make money. And you're right, the company itself doesn't have to prosper . . . only the shareholder(s) does/do.
Quote from: we vs us on September 09, 2011, 09:28:04 AM
I figured. But even if it's an accurate paraphrase (which I assume it is) she's jumped way out into left field.
I think she is using an actually smart campaign tactic. Everybody already knows she is pretty far right about everything. As everybody running for the Republican is trying to go more and more fringe she is doing the opposite. Besides the few candidates bucking the trend she has a better shot.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 09, 2011, 09:20:52 AM
It is what it is.. Its definitely not some form of morality as some try to assign to it. That somehow it "looks out" for anybody. Its all about making money. That is it. I believe back in the earlier days companies had some loyalty to employees as necessary to the growth of a company. Now employees are a necessary liablity that hopefully some day can be discarded completely.
I think sometimes it's the other way around. Most of the companies I have worked for legitimately care about their employees and promote innovation and work ethic as a means to advance. In these same companies where I have done very well, I have had co-workers that do nothing but groan and moan about how the boss doesn't care about them or how they never get a raise. Especially with younger workers, many of which get out of school and join the workforce expecting to be "cared for" with fancy benefits plans and promotions for meeting the expectations of their job description.
As for the employees that I have hired to work for me, I have become very good at spotting candidates that I will not hire. After getting burned more times than I wish to recall, it becomes very simple to identify the fundamental personality traits that will deliver a productive employee and co-worker.
I think companies want to limit liability, but they don't view employees as a liability unless economic circumstances make it that way, or the employee in question shows no capacity to advance beyond his/her current station.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 09, 2011, 09:35:45 AM
I think sometimes it's the other way around. Most of the companies I have worked for legitimately care about their employees and promote innovation and work ethic as a means to advance. In these same companies where I have done very well, I have had co-workers that do nothing but groan and moan about how the boss doesn't care about them or how they never get a raise. Especially with younger workers, many of which get out of school and join the workforce expecting to be "cared for" with fancy benefits plans and promotions for meeting the expectations of their job description.
As for the employees that I have hired to work for me, I have become very good at spotting candidates that I will not hire. After getting burned more times than I wish to recall, it becomes very simple to identify the fundamental personality traits that will deliver a productive employee and co-worker.
I think companies want to limit liability, but they don't view employees as a liability unless economic circumstances make it that way, or the employee in question shows no capacity to advance beyond his/her current station.
I agree this is true of small companies. But larger companies don't operate the same way. Which companies will get larger and larger. Smaller companies bought out, etc etc. Apple right now could probably buy every manufacturer in certain industries (if they chose). Without anti-monopoly regulation we will eventually have one company.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 09, 2011, 09:37:47 AM
I agree this is true of small companies. But larger companies don't operate the same way.
I was actually going to add that I've worked for some large companies and you are correct. When you get that many people you get politics beyond the philosophy of the company. You get individual layers of varying ethical responsibility. That's why some of these companies try to focus on "mission statements" and "corporate culture development" to try to get everyone on the same page when it comes to the value of the workforce. In many cases this does not work.
There's a wonderful "gotcha" in that plan for GOP incumbents. It will be presented as a jobs bill but includes tax increases on the wealthy. Vote against the bill and your Democrat opponent says you voted against jobs. Vote for it and your primary challenger says you voted for tax increases. It's brilliant as a political tool and is timed far enough out that Obama's operatives believe the short attention span of most voters will allow them to forget any other details of the legislation other than their rep was fer tax increases or agin jobs. You can bet there will be all sorts of unrelated parasites attached to the bill which will make it even more of a pile to Republicans.
I worry about the cut in payroll taxes and how it will impact the stability of the SS trust funds. I honestly don't see how the trust fund won't be impacted unless that part will be filled in by increases in cap gains and dividend rates.
Finally, I like part three or the pathways back to work. That's not terribly unlike what we've discussed here before. One of the problems we've got in jump-starting the economy is with an unemployment check, the government is investing in "non-productivity" rather than productivity. Get something in return for that unemployment benefits check instead of that check simply converting back to purchasing gasoline, groceries, and dry goods at Walmartz.
Overall, he's put items in there which should appeal to both sides of the aisle. Now we'll see if Boehner and McConnell will play ball instead of simply trying to hi-jack or torpedo every single proposal that the President brings them.
Oh and the leader of SarahPAC or whatever her PAC is, is one to talk when it comes to lambasting the moneyed interests paying for influence in Washington, though I don't disagree with her assessment of the "ruling class". The two party system simply acts as a foil so they can take turns at raiding the treasury and point the anger in the opposite direction. I'm reminded of the part of Goodfella's where Paulie is brought in as a partner of the Bamboo Lounge. His crew pillages the place and milks it for all it's worth until all credit resources are used up then they set fire to the place. Wasn't their money to begin with and they sure had a fun time looting the place as long as they could.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on September 09, 2011, 09:20:52 AM
I mean the end game of capitalism is 1 company that owns everything.
No it's not. That's socialism/communism only the last standing "company" is the government. Capitalism thrives on diversity and competition. If one company does manage to dominate, it will necessarily create competition eventually.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 10:01:44 AM
No it's not. That's socialism/communism only the last standing "company" is the government. Capitalism thrives on diversity and competition. If one company does manage to dominate, it will necessarily create competition eventually.
Thats why you either 1) buy them when they are small or 2) pass regulation blocking them or 3) sue them. It is a little harder with "ideas" but alot easier with natural resources and other larger capital ventures. Given an infinite amount of time one company will own everything and all competition will be purchased or squashed.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 10:01:44 AM
No it's not. That's socialism/communism only the last standing "company" is the government. Capitalism thrives on diversity and competition. If one company does manage to dominate, it will necessarily create competition eventually.
Socialism/Communism? pancakes? That interpretation is allll you.
He's right about the 1 company, though it's theoretical. Markets respond to leverage and the bigger you are the more leverage you have to tilt the market in your favor. It's a positive feedback loop. More money equals more leverage and more leverage equals more money. It also means that it's a negative feedback loop for your competitors. Less money means less leverage means less money, etc.
That's a recognized feature of capital-based free markets, which is why -- all the way back in Teddy Roosevelt's day -- he was busting up monopolies (which are simply expressions of this leverage feedback loop).
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 09:56:05 AM
There's a wonderful "gotcha" in that plan for GOP incumbents. It will be presented as a jobs bill but includes tax increases on the wealthy. Vote against the bill and your Democrat opponent says you voted against jobs. Vote for it and your primary challenger says you voted for tax increases. It's brilliant as a political tool and is timed far enough out that Obama's operatives believe the short attention span of most voters will allow them to forget any other details of the legislation other than their rep was fer tax increases or agin jobs. You can bet there will be all sorts of unrelated parasites attached to the bill which will make it even more of a pile to Republicans.
That's why it wasn't released on or before the speech. I also don't think the people are going to buy that any more. You can only cry wolf so many times, but he does need the blame game for his campaign.
I worry about the cut in payroll taxes and how it will impact the stability of the SS trust funds. I honestly don't see how the trust fund won't be impacted unless that part will be filled in by increases in cap gains and dividend rates.
Again, there is no indication as to how "100% of this is paid for," and he did touch on reform for SS without any details. Of course may simply be another trap to lay on congress, so that later he can claim that he cannot sign the bill. Remember, the most important thing for him going into the election is the ability to blame. He cannot campaign on his record, so he must campaign on blame.
Finally, I like part three or the pathways back to work. That's not terribly unlike what we've discussed here before. One of the problems we've got in jump-starting the economy is with an unemployment check, the government is investing in "non-productivity" rather than productivity. Get something in return for that unemployment benefits check instead of that check simply converting back to purchasing gasoline, groceries, and dry goods at Walmartz.
Unemployment checks do not "create" jobs, but they do buy votes.
Overall, he's put items in there which should appeal to both sides of the aisle. Now we'll see if Boehner and McConnell will play ball instead of simply trying to hi-jack or torpedo every single proposal that the President brings them.
I think they will genuinely try to work with the president. I think it will be harder to get the president to sign anything immediately, because he MUST develop some new blame for the unemployment rate going into his re-election. Without that, regardless of a jobs bill, he will not be re-elected. The republicans may have to eat some blame for the sake of the american people.
Oh and the leader of SarahPAC or whatever her PAC is, is one to talk when it comes to lambasting the moneyed interests paying for influence in Washington, though I don't disagree with her assessment of the "ruling class". The two party system simply acts as a foil so they can take turns at raiding the treasury and point the anger in the opposite direction. I'm reminded of the part of Goodfella's where Paulie is brought in as a partner of the Bamboo Lounge. His crew pillages the place and milks it for all it's worth until all credit resources are used up then they set fire to the place. Wasn't their money to begin with and they sure had a fun time looting the place as long as they could.
The Tea Party has decided the Republican party, now we need a group of reasonable people to divide the Democrat party. I'd like to see about 5 or six political parties, because I think there are diverse political philosophies out there that all have contributions to make.
Quote from: we vs us on September 09, 2011, 09:28:04 AM
I figured. But even if it's an accurate paraphrase (which I assume it is) she's jumped way out into left field.
Not really, she's simply stating a more of a pragmatic view which is based in reality. Let's use GE for an example: Jeff Immelt poses in the public eye arm-in-arm with our president as a CEO who cares about American jobs, all the while exploiting tax codes they helped write or at least had help lobbying for which has kept their corporate tax burden low. They also support free trade agreements which have allowed them to move jobs overseas where they can further drive down their cost of doing business. The saving grace of this behavior is that they do create and maintain many jobs here in the states which bolsters our GDP and tax revenues both on their payroll as well as payrolls and corporate taxes for a network of suppliers and service jobs which are created by the expenditures of GE employees and the employees of their vendors and suppliers.
Anyone other than people who are so entrenched in political dogma can see this. When you get as big as GE or GM, you must rely on the government to help keep you competitive and profitable since everyone seems to have lost their appetite for tariffs even toward countries like China who compete on an entirely different playing field.
No, I've not gone full-blown lefty. It's a fact of an evolving global economy. Instead of the government collecting revenue in protection of U.S. corporations, they are lowering revenues it to protect and keep them competitive now. As far as the ultimate cost being higher to the consumer with tariffs, the ultimate cost will be higher when the day of reckoning comes to deal with our massive pile of debt. Either individuals can pay higher tax rates so corporations enjoy a global advantage, or you raise tariffs and you see a direct increased cost in durable and consumer goods to the end user.
Quote from: we vs us on September 09, 2011, 10:10:31 AM
Socialism/Communism? pancakes? That interpretation is allll you.
Well, I think that one company that will exist will become the new government anyway (they employ all the people that have jobs, etc). So he is right, it will be a communist state but run by a company.
Obummer may have checkmated Rethuglicans as the Party of No.
Gaspar, I think the strategy at this point for the Obama administration is they are simply hoping the economy and jobs picture will start to turn around on it's own in the next 12 months. Going into November, they will lay most of the blame on Republican obstructionism so they can stack Congress with a Democrat majority for two more years before another shellacking in the '14 mid-terms. That way he can get another truck load of legacy legislation passed, arrange quid pro quo's for his '12 backers, then go play golf the last two years of his second term while doing nothing but antagonizing the GOP Congress.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 09, 2011, 10:25:05 AM
Obummer may have checkmated Rethuglicans as the Party of No.
He may have. That would suck for everyone, except President Obama. But, I don't think it will be enough. He was voted into office on the blame train, and carried that campaign through the past 3 years. I doubt the american people will allow that to continue.
Quote from: we vs us on September 09, 2011, 10:10:31 AM
Socialism/Communism? pancakes? That interpretation is allll you.
He's right about the 1 company, though it's theoretical. Markets respond to leverage and the bigger you are the more leverage you have to tilt the market in your favor. It's a positive feedback loop. More money equals more leverage and more leverage equals more money. It also means that it's a negative feedback loop for your competitors. Less money means less leverage means less money, etc.
That's a recognized feature of capital-based free markets, which is why -- all the way back in Teddy Roosevelt's day -- he was busting up monopolies (which are simply expressions of this leverage feedback loop).
Capitalism thrives on entrepreneurship, individualism, diversity, and innovation- not native thoughts in your liberal line of thinking ;). You will find little to none of that within a monolith.
Apple could buy up all the PC software development companies as well as companies building computers on the PC platform and yet, more PC companies will emerge as there's a general tendency from consumers to demand enough competition that monoliths will always create opportunities for competition. The only way that does not happen is if government steps in and prevents competition from happening. Government won't do that unless there's a huge stake in it for them and that becomes socialism or communism.
Competition has and always will be a cornerstone of capitalism.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 09, 2011, 10:33:19 AM
He may have. That would suck for everyone, except President Obama. But, I don't think it will be enough. He was voted into office on the blame train, and carried that campaign through the past 3 years. I doubt the american people will allow that to continue.
As long as the state-run media keeps up the meme that it's obstructionist Repigs, it will continue. Keep in mind, most voters only have a long enough attention span for a headline and a paragraph or two.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 10:28:09 AM
Gaspar, I think the strategy at this point for the Obama administration is they are simply hoping the economy and jobs picture will start to turn around on it's own in the next 12 months. Going into November, they will lay most of the blame on Republican obstructionism so they can stack Congress with a Democrat majority for two more years before another shellacking in the '14 mid-terms. That way he can get another truck load of legacy legislation passed, arrange quid pro quo's for his '12 backers, then go play golf the last two years of his second term while doing nothing but antagonizing the GOP Congress.
That's kinda what they did over the past 3 years was "Hoping" that things would naturally turn around. Well, Hope is not a strategy, and I'm happy to see that people are getting smarter and more interested in politics as a result of this administration. It has certainly been a good lesson for many.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 10:34:42 AM
Apple could buy up all the PC software development companies as well as companies building computers on the PC platform and yet, more PC companies will emerge as there's a general tendency from consumers to demand enough competition that monoliths will always create opportunities for competition. The only way that does not happen is if government steps in and prevents competition from happening. Government won't do that unless there's a huge stake in it for them and that becomes socialism or communism.
Actually Apple could buy Europe right now!
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 10:34:42 AM
Competition has and always will be a cornerstone of capitalism.
You're conflating capitalism with the free market. History shows quite clearly that absent government intervention monopolies or duopolies are nearly inevitable. Yes, the free market works best for most of us when there is vigorous competition. Unfortunately, that does not present the best return on investment for the capitalists who own said companies. Better for them to use what market power they have to shut others out, whether that be through extralegal means or simply selling below cost long enough to drive the smaller competitors out of business.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 09, 2011, 10:37:12 AM
Actually Apple could buy Europe right now!
Oh, and that's the other thing, as long as Apple has competition from buggy MicroCrap, it keeps driving more people toward their product. I've been on the Mac platform six months now and not one security issue.
Realistically on a super monopoly over multiple industries and countries probably couldn't be easily managed. You would have a few multi-industry monopolies.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 11:32:03 AM
Oh, and that's the other thing, as long as Apple has competition from buggy MicroCrap, it keeps driving more people toward their product. I've been on the Mac platform six months now and not one security issue.
20 years of mac with no security issues. I have an 8 year old Mac at home that I've never turned off. Still works like the day it was purchased.
Man, conversation around here, anywhere lately, is bizarre. People seem to be talking as though what they say is fact when it really seems to be a witches brew of politics, drugs, religion and old black and white propaganda films. Is it just me?
History majors feel free to fill in my spaces, I'm working from memory. Anyway, here is what happens when government does not restrain the growth of monopolies. In fact in the mid to late 1800's (the business period so revered by Libertarians and TPartiers for freedom from gubmnt) government actually encouraged them. The railroads were given free reign in the entire process of railroad infrastructure development. They determined routes, what towns grew and didn't, what products could be transported and what it would cost. Total monopoly power. The industry grew like weeds. If a weaker, innovative, entrepreneurial operator emerged and threatened the big boys they were summarily purchased, destroyed or legislated into oblivion.
Cornelius Vanderbilt and his partners constructed a railroad using land the government gave to them to enable their construction. It was a successful venture. So much so that the partners stole the company from Vanderbilt through stock manipulation. It took him awhile to figure it out but when he did he sent them a telegraph that went something like this, "Gentlemen. You have endeavored to steal something that was not yours. I will destroy you." They laughed it off. Vanderbilt then proceeded to construct another rail line directly parallel to the original yet much more opulent and comfortable. He then operated it at a loss until the original railroad could no longer compete and went bankrupt. He then bought the line back.
There is very little entrepreneurial spirit, innovation or creativity when monopolies are allowed to flourish unrestrained without the dreaded government interference.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2011, 12:09:01 PM
There is very little entrepreneurial spirit, innovation or creativity when monopolies are allowed to flourish unrestrained without the dreaded government interference.
Not sure what your whole ramble was to arrive at this point, but I think everyone here is pretty much in agreement on your last sentence.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2011, 12:09:01 PM
There is very little entrepreneurial spirit, innovation or creativity when monopolies are allowed to flourish unrestrained without the dreaded government interference.
Not sure if you are arguing a point, or who that thing was directed at, but I agree 100%.
Nice post. I think.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 12:17:23 PM
Not sure what your whole ramble was to arrive at this point, but I think everyone here is pretty much in agreement on your last sentence.
I think I was responding to your remark, "Capitalism thrives on entrepreneurship, individualism, diversity, and innovation- not native thoughts in your liberal line of thinking . You will find little to none of that within a monolith.
Apple could buy up all the PC software development companies as well as companies building computers on the PC platform and yet, more PC companies will emerge as there's a general tendency from consumers to demand enough competition that monoliths will always create opportunities for competition. The only way that does not happen is if government steps in and prevents competition from happening. Government won't do that unless there's a huge stake in it for them and that becomes socialism or communism.
Competition has and always will be a cornerstone of capitalism."
Nathan's reply, "You're conflating capitalism with the free market. History shows quite clearly that absent government intervention monopolies or duopolies are nearly inevitable. Yes, the free market works best for most of us when there is vigorous competition. Unfortunately, that does not present the best return on investment for the capitalists who own said companies. Better for them to use what market power they have to shut others out, whether that be through extralegal means or simply selling below cost long enough to drive the smaller competitors out of business."
It really wasn't worth the time I spent regurgitating the story. It was an argument looking for a participant I guess.
Carry on.
Quote from: AquaMan on September 09, 2011, 12:32:27 PM
I think I was responding to your remark, "Capitalism thrives on entrepreneurship, individualism, diversity, and innovation- not native thoughts in your liberal line of thinking . You will find little to none of that within a monolith.
Apple could buy up all the PC software development companies as well as companies building computers on the PC platform and yet, more PC companies will emerge as there's a general tendency from consumers to demand enough competition that monoliths will always create opportunities for competition. The only way that does not happen is if government steps in and prevents competition from happening. Government won't do that unless there's a huge stake in it for them and that becomes socialism or communism.
Competition has and always will be a cornerstone of capitalism."
Nathan's reply, "You're conflating capitalism with the free market. History shows quite clearly that absent government intervention monopolies or duopolies are nearly inevitable. Yes, the free market works best for most of us when there is vigorous competition. Unfortunately, that does not present the best return on investment for the capitalists who own said companies. Better for them to use what market power they have to shut others out, whether that be through extralegal means or simply selling below cost long enough to drive the smaller competitors out of business."
It really wasn't worth the time I spent regurgitating the story. It was an argument looking for a participant I guess.
Carry on.
Been guilty of that myself. I'm sure a participate will emerge. . . Nate. . .Teatown. . .Bueller?
Its not like I have time or spare grey matter either. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 11:32:03 AM
Oh, and that's the other thing, as long as Apple has competition from buggy MicroCrap, it keeps driving more people toward their product. I've been on the Mac platform six months now and not one security issue.
You just haven't been paying attention. Most recently, they
still haven't revoked trust in Safari for the CA that has been giving the Iranians fake certificates for several sites (including Google) over the past few months. This allows the Iranians to run man-in-the-middle attacks against people using Gmail. (so far, the evidence is they've only been doing it to their own people)
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2011, 01:06:41 PM
You just haven't been paying attention. Most recently, they still haven't revoked trust in Safari for the CA that has been giving the Iranians fake certificates for several sites (including Google) over the past few months. This allows the Iranians to run man-in-the-middle attacks against people using Gmail. (so far, the evidence is they've only been doing it to their own people)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/401738574_6ec34a5166.jpg)
I thought "man in the middle" was illegal under Shira law?
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219669/Mac_OS_X_can_t_properly_revoke_dodgy_digital_certificates
That's pretty important functionality which they've left broken for a while now. DigiNotar issued over 200 fraudulent certificates for over 20 domains, and then covered it up until Google noticed the fakes in the wild. That's exactly the opposite of what a trustworthy CA would do, yet Apple refuses to remove their root certificate for some reason.
Also, I don't like Apple's refusal to discuss security issues much. They act like Microsoft (and Cisco, and Sun, and most other companies) did before they finally saw the light a few years back. The only difference is that their OS is somewhat more secure from the outset thanks to its BSD origins and there are many fewer people trying to attack their platform.
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2011, 01:25:28 PM
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9219669/Mac_OS_X_can_t_properly_revoke_dodgy_digital_certificates
That's pretty important functionality which they've left broken for a while now. DigiNotar issued over 200 fraudulent certificates for over 20 domains, and then covered it up until Google noticed the fakes in the wild. That's exactly the opposite of what a trustworthy CA would do, yet Apple refuses to remove their root certificate for some reason.
Also, I don't like Apple's refusal to discuss security issues much. They act like Microsoft (and Cisco, and Sun, and most other companies) did before they finally saw the light a few years back. The only difference is that their OS is somewhat more secure from the outset thanks to its BSD origins and there are many fewer people trying to attack their platform.
That's too deep geek for me. I don't have a clue what you are talking about other than your apparent incessant need to say something contrary to my POV any chance you get ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 03:16:37 PM
That's too deep geek for me. I don't have a clue what you are talking about other than your apparent incessant need to say something contrary to my POV any chance you get ;)
I know what he's talking about, I'm just impressed that he would take so much time and energy to find something so obscure just to show disagreement with you.
Security vulnerabilities in Internet Explorer have caused TENS OF MILLIONS of MIM and spoof attacks on MILLIONS of Americans. They are the window to thousands of attacks every day.
Nate could just save some time by responding to people with "Nah-Uh!"
Quote from: Conan71 on September 09, 2011, 03:16:37 PM
That's too deep geek for me. I don't have a clue what you are talking about other than your apparent incessant need to say something contrary to my POV any chance you get ;)
Actually, I prefer when we agree. :P ;D
Suffice it to say that if Apple is slow about removing trust from certificates that are known to have issued forged certificates that it opens you up to nefarious activity because your browser will tell you you're securely communicating with (for example) Chase Bank's website when in fact you're actually talking to some Nigerian scammer who is logging your password, account numbers, and whatever else and forwarding your traffic on to Chase. (and vice versa)
Gaspar, I know about things like this because it's my business. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on September 09, 2011, 03:37:31 PM
Actually, I prefer when we agree. :P ;D
Suffice it to say that if Apple is slow about removing trust from certificates that are known to have issued forged certificates that it opens you up to nefarious activity because your browser will tell you you're securely communicating with (for example) Chase Bank's website when in fact you're actually talking to some Nigerian scammer who is logging your password, account numbers, and whatever else and forwarding your traffic on to Chase. (and vice versa)
Gaspar, I know about things like this because it's my business. ;)
I know ;)
Quote from: Gaspar on September 09, 2011, 03:41:54 PM
I know ;)
You may have noticed that my sense of humor is dry. Much like the weather recently, drought might be a better word.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44488639 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/44488639)
QuotePresident Obama is proposing to end several tax provisions—including tax breaks for those earning more than $200,000 and the carried-interest tax break for hedge funds—in order to pay for his $447 billion job-creation package, the White House said Monday
The tax breaks to be ended, including those for oil and gas companies, will total $467 billion, White House Budget Director Jack Lew told reporters.
He said the extra $20 billion in cuts were intended to "build in a cushion" to make sure the plan is paid for without adding to deficits, as Obama has promised.
"In order to invest in jobs and growth, we're going to have to pay for it," Lew told reporters as Obama prepared to submit his jobs program to Congress on Monday.
Lew said the "tax provisions" that Obama was proposing included:
A limit on itemized deductions and certain exemptions on individuals who earn over $200,000 and families who earn over $250,000, which would raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years.
A proposal to treat carried interest earned by investment fund managers as ordinary income rather than taxing it at capital gains rates, which would raise $18 billion.
Eliminating certain oil and gas industry tax breaks that would raise $40 billion.
A change in corporate jet depreciation rules that would raise $3 billion.
...
Rethuglicans could care less about the unemployed. Looks like Obummer has his easel and paints out all ready to paint them into a corner...
http://www.thewashingtoncurrent.com/2011/09/dems-put-muscle-behind-obama-jobs-act.html
"The DNC campaign is designed to put pressure on recalcitrant Republicans."
The only impact-full tax change in the president's bill is the same one he has proposed since 2008, and re-enforces the very fear that has continued to stagnate the economy. Everything else in the bill now lives in the shadow of this single provision.
A limit on itemized deductions and certain exemptions on individuals who earn over $200,000 and families who earn over $250,000, which would raise roughly $400 billion over 10 years.
Aside from Obamacare this is the continuous push that has caused much of the economic uncertainty surrounding his presidency. It affects every small business that is registered as an LLC (most of them). If passed, it will increase the prices on every good and service we use. If your employer can no longer itemize her expenses, she will pay significantly more in taxes every year.
For the past 3 years the fear of this has caused businesses to suspend hiring. If it becomes reality, there will only be two ways to compensate for it. Reduce workforce (if possible) or increase prices.
I suppose we knew there would be a bomb attached to this bill. The president knows that no one with a single ounce of economic sense would pass this. It is now obvious that the entire renewed jobs initiative was simply to increase the divide and focus the spotlight of inaction on the Republicans and create new hobgoblins to blame.
Too sad. Last week it sounded like he was ready to focus on the economy, but alas; it was simply another misguided wealth redistribution attempt.
Back to class warfare yesterday:
"We have to make sure that this is being paid for by folks who are not paying their fair share now. Making sure that the wealthiest, most fortunate step up to the plate. That's how we are going to get this done."
But is cutting taxes for those that create jobs.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 13, 2011, 07:54:31 AM
"We have to make sure that this is being paid for by folks who are not paying their fair share now. Making sure that the wealthiest, most fortunate step up to the plate. That's how we are going to get this done."
Why does he think he needs to keep framing this as class warfare? Oh I forget, he's not leading, he's campaigning.
He might get a better buy in if he'd quit saying things like "...folks who are not paying their fair share..."
Why does he deliberately want to piss off the upper crust? He's already got most of the lower income voters locked in since the stats show they tend to favor Democrat POTUS candidates.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 13, 2011, 10:10:44 AM
Why does he think he needs to keep framing this as class warfare? Oh I forget, he's not leading, he's campaigning.
He might get a better buy in if he'd quit saying things like "...folks who are not paying their fair share..."
Why does he deliberately want to piss off the upper crust? He's already got most of the lower income voters locked in since the stats show they tend to favor Democrat POTUS candidates.
Warren Buffet has his back but nice try....it's use guys who drum up the class warfare by defending the greedy....
Quote from: Conan71 on September 13, 2011, 10:10:44 AM
Why does he think he needs to keep framing this as class warfare? Oh I forget, he's not leading, he's campaigning.
He might get a better buy in if he'd quit saying things like "...folks who are not paying their fair share..."
Why does he deliberately want to piss off the upper crust? He's already got most of the lower income voters locked in since the stats show they tend to favor Democrat POTUS candidates.
By prolonging economic recovery through class warfare he has created an opportunity to campaign through 12 states with the same message as 2008, but this time he gets to do it without using any of his campaign cash. Quite brilliant actually, but ethically disgusting.
I disagree with you. I think many of his past supporters have become more politically astute and attune to what he is doing. He is relying on the next couple of weeks to re-ignite the fires of of class warfare and organizing the poor to take up their pitch-forks, but I think what he will find is that the ranks of the poor have grown, and among them are many who are not interested in the politics of dependency.
I also think that he will discover that through his actions, many of his previous constituency has striven to understand why the policies he promised did not render the results he promised, and through those efforts they have increased their political intelligence beyond pander and paw.
His speech last week was supposed to have impact among the uninformed with it's 17 instances of "pass this bill now" to frame his effort as the architecture for saving the economy, but quickly, even the liberal media deconstructed it into shiny platitudes covering a core of spend more tax more, build more dependency strategy. Giddy Republicans and business owners anticipated an acquiescence to the adoption of pro-growth policies only to have their hopes dashed yet again by the same message, and what will now be reflected upon as a campaign kick-off speech.
Is that you, shadows?
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2011, 04:50:42 PM
Is that you, shadows?
I think, but can't be sure, he may me spooging out something he heard on a talk show. Someone on there told him how the "liberals" were thinking and he went with it.
Quote from: Townsend on September 13, 2011, 04:58:25 PM
I think, but can't be sure, he may me spooging out something he heard on a talk show. Someone on there told him how the "liberals" were thinking and he went with it.
Oh, one of those people who thinks they miraculously know other people's inner thoughts and motivations. It amazes me that someone can accuse a President who has basically done what both sides asked on the economy of attempting to keep the economy in the toilet. Not only that, but it's completely nonsensical if you believe Obama wants to be re-elected.
Quote from: nathanm on September 13, 2011, 06:42:54 PM
Oh, one of those people who thinks they miraculously know other people's inner thoughts and motivations. It amazes me that someone can accuse a President who has basically done what both sides asked on the economy of attempting to keep the economy in the toilet. Not only that, but it's completely nonsensical if you believe Obama wants to be re-elected.
Let's look at the back-end of this
pile proposed bill. More risk for small business by making unemployed people a protected class. What does that do? You can look at it one of two ways: blackmailing business to hire sub-par candidates out of fear they could be sued by an unqualified candidate who incorrectly claims they were discriminated against because they were unemployed. Or, it provides a huge disincentive to even think about hiring new employees out of fear of litigation costs if they are not hiring enough people off u/e rolls.
The high end tax increases are back. Even Democrat strategists have been saying that any economist worth their salt knows that tax increases in a recession are a bad idea.
Louie Gohmert weighs in:
Quote"Gohmert pointed to little-noticed aspects of the bill that Obama presented to Congress on Monday. One, he said, turns the unemployed into a protected class similar to ethnic minorities.
"If you apply for a job and you think that the reason you didn't get hired is because you were unemployed at the time, you¹re now a protected class," said Gohmert, whose largely rural district borders Louisiana. "You've now got a cause of action, go get a lawyer.
"How do you prove, if you're an employer, that being unemployed was not the reason that you did not hire somebody. It is going to create all kinds of claims for this mass of people and there'll be more and more unemployed because of this bill.
"This is a job killer except for famous lawyers who do labor work, they¹re going to have a field day," Gohmert said. "Anybody that¹s unemployed who doesn't get hired is going to have a claim, a cause of action. But everybody else is going to be in big trouble."
Gohmert said he got the text of the bill on Monday evening and spent much of the night studying it. His analysis is that the real losers would be small businesses.
Taking the oil and gas industry, he said it would help huge corporations such as British Petroleum and Exxon Mobil while hurting the small independent companies that provide much of the energy produced in the United States.
What Obama calls subsidies for the oil industry that he wants to eliminate are really the same tax deductions that all companies get, Gohmert said.
"They're deductions of the cost of doing business. Every manufacturer, every employer gets to deduct the cost of doing business, but this president wants to make sure oil companies don¹t, and who¹s going to be helped? The biggest oil companies will be helped. The price of oil, if this becomes law, will go up."
Read more on Newsmax.com: Rep. Gohmert: Obama's Jobs Bill Has Devilish Details
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
We need job creation but the president seems to be playing politics instead. It's a no-win situation for Republicans in the house. Although, one positive seems to be that Boehner is at least looking at it carefully, waiting for a CBO score, and considering what parts of the bill will fly with the GOP base.
Regardless, looking at poll numbers, fewer and fewer Americans approve of the president's handling of the economy.
Everyone is distancing themselves from this now that they understand it's purpose. I think it has now been made perfectly clear that any job creation will be directly linked to the outcome of the 2012 elections.
I'm glad Boehner is being optimistic, but I'm relatively sure (after Axelrod's remarks last night) that if he tries to strip the damaging parts out of this bill, the President will not sign it.
Yesterday, the President said he was willing to compromise and accept and sign parts of this bill, but then Axelrod hit the networks with a resounding NO, THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS BILL UNLESS IT IS INTACT.
It will be interesting though to see if many people's suspicions are correct about Axelrod's power over President Obama.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 14, 2011, 10:39:45 AM
Let's look at the back-end of this pile proposed bill. More risk for small business by making unemployed people a protected class. What does that do? You can look at it one of two ways: blackmailing business to hire sub-par candidates out of fear they could be sued by an unqualified candidate who incorrectly claims they were discriminated against because they were unemployed. Or, it provides a huge disincentive to even think about hiring new employees out of fear of litigation costs if they are not hiring enough people off u/e rolls.
Wasn't it just a few months back that you agreed that companies are refusing to hire the long-term unemployed merely because they're unemployed and not because of a lack of qualifications or anything of that sort? We tried the carrot; maybe it's time for a stick. (I don't know anything about the bill, as I've not been paying much attention to the news in the last week or so)
Quote from: nathanm on September 14, 2011, 11:38:45 AM
Wasn't it just a few months back that you agreed that companies are refusing to hire the long-term unemployed merely because they're unemployed and not because of a lack of qualifications or anything of that sort? We tried the carrot; maybe it's time for a stick. (I don't know anything about the bill, as I've not been paying much attention to the news in the last week or so)
Yes I did and do agree, but I did not advocate making them a protected class then or now. Supposedly the administration wants to lower the bar on job-choking regulations, then they unwittingly or wittingly throw a new hurdle in which could potentially offset any gains which may be realized by lowering or removing other regs. Unfortunately, the stick approach may make some business owners decide to take their operations across the border or overseas. Or just cease operations, liquidate, and go kick it in the Caribbean.
This administration reminds me more and more of when John Blake was running the OU football program.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 14, 2011, 11:57:52 AM
Yes I did and do agree, but I did not advocate making them a protected class then or now. Supposedly the administration wants to lower the bar on job-choking regulations, then they unwittingly or wittingly throw a new hurdle in which could potentially offset any gains which may be realized by lowering or removing other regs. Unfortunately, the stick approach may make some business owners decide to take their operations across the border or overseas. Or just cease operations, liquidate, and go kick it in the Caribbean.
This administration reminds me more and more of when John Blake was running the OU football program.
There is a very obvious path that they can take, but they insist on tromping through the woods in the dark, because to take the path would mean admitting they were wrong. Pride is President Obama's enemy now.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 14, 2011, 12:14:08 PM
There is a very obvious path that they can take, but they insist on tromping through the woods in the dark, because to take the path would mean admitting they were wrong. Pride is President Obama's enemy now.
I see you still fancy yourself a psychic. Perhaps Miss Cleo has a job for you?
Conan, in my (limited) experience, there's a rather high bar to be met for a employment discrimination suit to succeed, so attorneys don't generally bring them without merit. As I opaquely indicated earlier, I don't even know for sure that this right wing meme is actually in the bill since I haven't been keeping up with the news. It may be yet another baseless smear like "death panels".
Holy Pancakes!
I thought the Republicans would be the obstacle to the president's misguided jobs bill, but the Democrats are actually making the rounds today!
"Terrible," Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told POLITICO when asked about the president's ideas for how to pay for the $450 billion price tag. "We shouldn't increase taxes on ordinary income. ... There are other ways to get there."
"That offset is not going to fly, and he should know that," said Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu from the energy-producing Louisiana, referring to Obama's elimination of oil and gas subsidies. "Maybe it's just for his election, which I hope isn't the case."
"I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan," said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), discussing proposals to slash the debt by $4 trillion by overhauling entitlement programs and raising revenue through tax reforms. "That's better than everything else the president is talking about — combined."
I think perhaps congress will send him back to the golf course and come up with their own bill.
The American Jobs Act of 2011 has now been introduced in congress. Unfortunately the administration forgot to reserve this name before the president's speech last week. The bill that was just introduced simply eliminates the corporate income tax. It is 2 pages long and would reduce all corporate income tax to 0%.
If passed the effect on the economy would be swift and immediate.
(http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/554/original/facepalm.jpg?1248715065)
Quote from: nathanm on September 14, 2011, 12:26:55 PM
I see you still fancy yourself a psychic. Perhaps Miss Cleo has a job for you?
Conan, in my (limited) experience, there's a rather high bar to be met for a employment discrimination suit to succeed, so attorneys don't generally bring them without merit. As I opaquely indicated earlier, I don't even know for sure that this right wing meme is actually in the bill since I haven't been keeping up with the news. It may be yet another baseless smear like "death panels".
Gohmert has no reason to lie about the contents of the bill especially when one can look up the text.
Having gone through many hours of personnel management training when I worked for a Fortune 500 company, I can tell you that regardless of how remote the chances of being sued are, it's a very real threat at any time and for any perceived reason. The company I worked for benefitted from in-house counsel. Smaller businesses must lawyer up just to respond to claims. Many times it's hoped a company will simply offer a token amount to avoid the costs of going to court.
This is a list of notable lawsuits
just from the EEOC since 2009. There have been seventeen actions alone filed by the EEOC in just the last week. One of the more ironic ones is "The Scooter Store" being sued for disability discrimination on Sept. 2nd. :o
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/index.cfm
Adding this on would most definitely be a disincentive to job creation. I agree there's a problem, this solution is simply too big a lever. I'm much more in favor of unemployment benefits being tied to doing some sort of useful work on behalf of the federal, state, or local government, school systems or even as a job re-training program or temporary job placement within private companies with an opportunity to eventually transition onto permanent payroll. Of course, that could be abused by employers to get free labor by churning temps every 60 to 90 days.
Nothing says someone can't immediately find a situation of under-employment instead of riding the unemployment float for a year.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 14, 2011, 03:32:00 PM
Adding this on would most definitely be a disincentive to job creation. I agree there's a problem, this solution is simply too big a lever. I'm much more in favor of unemployment benefits being tied to doing some sort of useful work on behalf of the federal, state, or local government, school systems or even as a job re-training program or temporary job placement within private companies with an opportunity to eventually transition onto permanent payroll. Of course, that could be abused by employers to get free labor by churning temps every 60 to 90 days.
Nothing says someone can't immediately find a situation of under-employment instead of riding the unemployment float for a year.
I agree that it seems excessively aggressive, at least on the surface. And I'm also in favor of long-term unemployment being a work program, so that people aren't actually unemployed. The Teahadists (I use that term to refer only to the extremists) are argue against unemployment benefits at all, so I don't know that it's politically possible to improve the unemployment situation with that sort of plan, no matter how much sense it makes outside of crazytown.
Sadly, the job market says a lot of people can't immediately find a situation of under-employment. Between the 10% of the US population already underemployed, the 26% unemployment among young people who typically take that sort of retail/fast foot/whatever job, and the number of employers who refuse to hire people they think might not stick around, prospects are bleak if you can't get a job pretty quickly.
Quote from: Gaspar on September 14, 2011, 02:19:09 PM
The American Jobs Act of 2011 has now been introduced in congress. Unfortunately the administration forgot to reserve this name before the president's speech last week. The bill that was just introduced simply eliminates the corporate income tax. It is 2 pages long and would reduce all corporate income tax to 0%.
If passed the effect on the economy would be swift and immediate.
Tell me this guy didn't do it just to get his name out there. BTW, no name reservations. Just respect for other lawmakers.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/tea-party-congressman-beats-obama-american-jobs-act-181129773.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/tea-party-congressman-beats-obama-american-jobs-act-181129773.html)
QuoteLouie Gohmert, a Republican representative from Texas, sat in the House chamber last Thursday night and listened while President Obama told members of Congress to pass his plan for job creation, which he called "The American Jobs Act." The weekend went by, but House Democrats didn't submit an official piece of legislation with Obama's proposals.
Nearly a full week passed. Still no bill.
So Gohmert took matters into his own hands. He submitted his own bill and titled it, "The American Jobs Act of 2011."
"After waiting to see what the president would actually put into legislative language, and then waiting to see if anybody would actually introduce the president's bill in the House, today I took the initiative," Gohmert said in a statement after he submitted the bill on Wednesday.
Gohmert's bill looks nothing like the 155-page plan Obama issued this week. It is only two pages long, and it eliminates the corporate tax on companies that make products in the United States.
"It is a very simple bill," Gohmert said. "If we really want to create jobs and grow the economy, we must pass 'The American Jobs Act' now."
As of this writing, House Democrats have still not submitted their own version of what Obama wanted to call "The American Jobs Act of 2011." Under House rules, members of Congress are allowed to submit separate bills with the same name.