The Politicization Of Jobs

Fiscal Scare tactics – and Da king is guilty of it – this goes more to your other posts but still applies to this one too http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2010995597_krugman07.html
By Noble prize winning economist Krugman

"And fear-mongering on the deficit may end up doing as much harm as the fear-mongering on weapons of mass destruction.

Let's talk for a moment about budget reality. Contrary to what you often hear, the large deficit that the federal government is running right now isn't the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions, and been met — appropriately — with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment.

The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.

True, there is a longer-term budget problem. Even a full economic recovery wouldn't balance the budget, and it probably wouldn't even reduce the deficit to a permanently sustainable level. So once the economic crisis is past, the U.S. government will have to increase its revenue and control its costs. And in the long run there's no way to make the budget math work unless something is done about health-care costs.

But there's no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade. Consider, for example, what the latest budget proposal from the Obama administration says about interest payments on federal debt; according to the projections, a decade from now they'll have risen to 3.5 percent of GDP. How scary is that? It's about the same as interest costs under the first President George Bush.

Why, then, all the hysteria? The answer is politics."

We have to create jobs? But we already did; or that is, they created themselves. It's not the government that creates jobs. Ordinary people with a little gumption do it quite well, if given the chance, but after they were created, we shipped them all overseas; so now we have to do it all over again. It wasn't Bush; it's not Obama; It's $%@**# economists who can't tell the difference between theory and reality, and the politicians who listen to them.

Some folks look more than a couple years into the future, while folks like Krugman don't, I guess.

Our first mistake is to assume that the goal is to create jobs in the private sector. A healthy economy does not lend itself to an enviornment that will Obama to fundamentally transform America.

Andrea,
You and Krugman think it's "fearmongering" to be concerned about the deficits and debt. I just absolutely love these up-is-down liberal recharacterizations of reality. Krugman even says the deficits AREN'T BIG ENOUGH. Right, and the problem with the Titanic was that it didn't take on ENOUGH water.

Wake up already. Your country is being ruined right under your nose, and you're arguing that it isn't being ruined fast enough.

And this statement by Krugman – "But there's no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade," is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. You don't wait until the house is consumed in flames before you grab the fire extinguisher. You put out the fire before it gets out of control, and that's where we're at with the deficit/debt problem. If we wait a decade to start to address it, we're screwed.

Krugman reminds me of the people from two or three years ago who kept saying, "the housing bubble ? No cause for worry there." What a clown. I didn't think my opinion of Krugman could sink any lower, but it just did.

So Da king and larry d.
you are scared about 6.4 trillion spent to stop the countries economy meltdown.
- were you also concerned about $2.11 trillion that resulted from the Bush tax cuts as well as the $379 billion in additional interest payments on the national debt that we must make since the tax cuts were deficit-financed?
So now that Bush gave us a party but didn't pay for it now that you are so concerned rightfully so about the future – what do you do to solve it ? You need to raise taxes , but you cant raise taxes on those that are struggling to put food on the table so you need to raise taxes on those that are stashing their money into tax deferments plans, buying homes in the carribean and putting money in overseas bank accounts.
That's how you get out of the red. Stopping plans to stir the economy back in to shape and trying to stop reform to help make health insurance affordable in the future would just be stupid. As you say larry d we need to look into the future. Tax cuts win votes and might sound good but you cant have a party and not pay for it

Andrea,
Stop the Bush vs. Obama crap. This isn't about either one of them. I'm against ALL the deficit spending that has this country $12.3 trillion in debt, with no end to the debt escalation in sight, along with $55 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities.

Federal spending has doubled in the last few years, and you think the answer is to raise taxes. Duh. Spoken like a true sheep. If you are ready to DOUBLE the current rate of taxation, then please, argue directly for that, because that's what it will take to tax our way out of the problem. You won't find many Americans to agree with you, only the stupid ones who don't know that the more you take out of the private sector, the POORER people will be. You are arguing in favor of mass poverty.

King –

While I usually agree with most of your comments, I think Obama and the Democratic majority bear a good deal of responsibility for the current job problem and economic downturn. His vague initiative on healthcare reform, massive spending, appointment of regulatory czars, positions on global warming, and general indecisiveness have created an environment of uncertainty that makes any business owner uncertain about the future. We see everything that is going on and know that the only way to pay for all of this will come from our pockets.

Businesses in general don't react well to uncertainty and instability. That's the reason for the pullback in employment. Remember Rick Santelli's frustrated rant? It was an echo about how angry many of us felt then, and continue to feel today.

Investing in your business (or the market) is always a calculation of risk vs. reward, unless you are subsidized by the government in some bizarre special interest like GM, Chrysler, or Fannie/Freddie.

From the early days of this president's term through today, I see lots of risk and don't have the confidence that there will be a reward in the end. We have to be cautious and conservative because there is no bailout for us if we make a wrong decision.

I agree, Irreverend. Obama has us heading straight for a Carteresque malaise, if we are not already in one.

Andrea, yes, most Republicans, Independents, Unaffiliateds and Libertarians became quite concerned about the level of Bush spending and that is why his approval ratings plummeted the last few years of his term. Dems for the most part always hated him and thought he stole the 2000 election. Your talking point rewrites history.

As for taxing the rich, it's a simplistic and short term notion. Like a drug addict asking relatives for money when buying crack is the root problem.

this from CounterPunch…..

"Has He Got a Plan for You!
China's Wage Rates for U.S. Workers
By SHAMUS COOKE

His plan would be laughable were not the stakes so high and were not millions of people suffering. That night Obama essentially told millions of U.S. workers to “eat cake.” Most of the Republicans refused to applaud for anything Obama said; but they must have been smiling brightly inside given that he had plagiarized their ideas.

The core of Obama’s “bold plan” to create jobs does not create a single job. Rather, it encourages corporations to hire workers by giving them a variety of tax credits or tax breaks — the same solution proposed by Bush and Reagan; a building block of Conservative Ideology.

The reason that Obama’s plan is bound to fail is that businesses need more than merely encouragement to hire workers, they demand profits. A recession is defined by an absence of profits, without which corporations lay off workers or hibernate until a more profitable environment reappears. This is capitalism 101."

http://www.counterpunch.org/cooke02042010.html

I asked the owner of the company I work for if he would hire anyone if he got a tax cut and he said no…….he would hoard it until things turned around.

I think King's main premise is faulty. Some of what he says is correct….but his main premise is seeking equivalency in the extremely mild recession Bush inherited and the 700,000-per-month-job-losses economy Obama inherited. Apples and oranges.

Once again, King seeks to mitigate Bush's responsibility by throwing in 9-11. The trillions borrowed to fuel ongoing wars of choice, however, is all on Bush, whether King agrees or not.

But what's very laughable is King's cluelessness about Paul Krugman. Krugman, along with a few other prominent economists, like Roubini, predicted accurately in 2007 what was going to happen with the Bankster-driven mortgage situation. He predicted the collapse and subsequent meltdown with uncanny accuracy. But what could he know, right?

Just as Krugman was correct…then…..so too now, when he advocates for more government spending. Fiscal scolds, like King, self-muted entirely during the Bush-Cheney sell-off of America, are the neo-Hooverites encouraging a crackdown on spending at the very time that spending is required.

Hey, it worked in the 30's to slow down the U.S. recovery…..I'm sure it can slow down any recovery now.

And that way…..if the recovery is slowed down…..which is the goal of libertarians and conservatives who dislike Obama……then Democrats might be more easily defeated the next election go-around.

Actually, that's the ONLY goal of conservatives and Republicans.

You are right about the conservatives goals to slow down the recovery Rev. Just like it was the Dems goal to crash the economy in 2007 and they achieved that. The Reps will slow the turn around. We need to get rid of the people in office now and hire(vote in) people that want to help America without hurting and destroying it's people, power and status in the world. They are all sacrificing us for their own personal gain.

Finally Walt you see what we, in the middle, are all talking about. Did you look beyond the owers words or take them at face value?

Andrea, Klugman's ideas would work if we were the industrial giant we were back 20 or 30 or 40 years ago. When the leverage on our treasury bonds were 8 or 10:1. They are now 16 to 18:1. and during the last auction it was difficult to find buyers confident in the strength of America. This is an economy on the verge of collapse. If you can't afford to pay your debt then you can't afford to maintain the current budget. We are not strong enough to keep on taking on more and more debt. We are an economy based on service and not industry. Also, there are just as many economists that agree with that logic. It's like the Global Warming debate. In fact I predicted this financial slump happening back in 1999 when I saw the run on 2nd mortgages and home equity lines of credit given at ARM rates starting at 2% and the ignorant America consumer was sucking in the bait hook, line and sinker! Does this mean I have the cred of Krugman? Also this is not over no matter how much cash they throw at the problem. There are regulations and legislation coming out in the stock exchange, commodities and currency markets that will destroy our ability to gain wealth.

"Did you look beyond the owers words or take them at face value?"

what does that mean?

The way you wrote the line and used the word "hoard" makes it sound like you think he is being selfish and not wanting to spend the money to create a job. In actuality is is exactly what all business owners are doing because they know that the proposed tax increases and fees and healthcare costs and cap and trade will be a profit crushing blow to his business.

Most libs, like union leaders would look at the owner and demand their share and say "well you're getting a tax cut, create a job" when what he is doing is protecting his company and employees until he sees what happens.

Just wondering that's all. Hoard is a harsh word.

Odds are, the owner just told walt what he wanted to hear so walt wouldn't waste the afternoon googling and arguing.

I wasn't paraphrasing….that was the word he used. I understood what he meant.

larry…I don't google anymore….I go straight to FactlarryD.com

Irreverend,
I'm with you on the uncertainty Obama has created with his policies, and I said so in my post. That is a factor, but blaming the 4.2. million job losses from the last year on him just isn't honest. Those losses were caused by the recession, not by the President.

Reverend,
I'm not going to respond much more to your crapola until you stop lying. For example, you said, "Fiscal scolds, like King, self-muted entirely during the Bush-Cheney sell-off of America."

That's the exact opposite of the truth, and you know it.

joe,
Great comment on the debt. If we don't reverse course quick, we will no longer be a superpower. That's the bottom line, and why our lefties on this blog can't see that is mystifying, to say the least. It's almost as if they want the country to collapse under it's own weight. That's what they keep arguing for. I'll never understand it.

walter says, "I asked the owner of the company I work for if he would hire anyone if he got a tax cut and he said no…….he would hoard it until things turned around."

Because the tax credits Obama is proposing would only be available IF workers were hired, either your owner is a dunce or you asked him the wrong question. If your owner didn't hire any workers, there wouldn't be any tax credits to hoard.

You should have asked the owner if he'd be more likely to hire workers with the tax credits, or without them. The answer to that question is more important, and illustrates the job creation benefit of tax credits.

King, let me re-phrase what I asked the owner of the company….."I asked the owner of the company I work for if he would hire anyone if he got a tax cut and he said no….."

the owner of the company is neither a dunce nor did I ask him the wrong question

you're just being an idiot

Economics is strange that way, walt. If you give a tax cut, some will take advantage by investing in new employees, some will take advantage by saving. Even others may take advantage by holding off on firing the lazy shop agitator who wastes most afternoons googling leftist websites and making stupid remarks about politics.

But overall, more will invest in new employees with the cut than the number that would hire without the cuts. Even a man as clueless as Obama knows this.

I asked my buddy who owns the transmission shop if he would hire more people if he got a tax cut……said he didn't need a tax cut right now but what he did need is more paying customers coming thru the doors.

let me repeat this from Shamus Cooke……"The reason that Obama’s plan is bound to fail is that businesses need more than merely encouragement to hire workers, they demand profits. A recession is defined by an absence of profits, without which corporations lay off workers or hibernate until a more profitable environment reappears. This is capitalism 101."

economics IS strange that way

FactlarryD.com is a leftist website?

just when you think you've heard it all…..along comes larry

Walter,
I was only responding to what you wrote. You quoted an opposition to Obama's tax credits in your comment, as follows:

"The core of Obama’s “bold plan” to create jobs does not create a single job. Rather, it encourages corporations to hire workers by giving them a variety of tax credits or tax breaks — the same solution proposed by Bush and Reagan; a building block of Conservative Ideology. The reason that Obama’s plan is bound to fail is that businesses need more than merely encouragement to hire workers"

Then you said you asked your owner if he'd hire if he got a tax cut. Because YOUR subject was OBAMA'S TAX CREDITS, I pointed out that your owner wouldn't get a tax credit UNLESS he hired workers. That is true, and I repeat, YOU brought up the subject, not me. Duh, walt.

That's why I never get offended when an idiot calls me an idiot. I consider the source.

I will grant you that businesses losing money don't need tax credits, because losing companies won't be paying income taxes. That's an obvious point. However, not every company in America is losing money, so some will take advantage of Obama's tax credits and hire people, more than they would have otherwise. That's also obvious.

larry,
I don't think walter really has a job anyway. He posts on the blogs at all hours.

None of this blather even matters. Americans are not spending…..they're not buying stuff. Too much debt is one reason…….many Americans use of credit is plummeting, not because they can't borrow….but because they don't WANT to borrow.

Jobs created through tax credits would simply be a spinning of the wheels, so to speak.

What Obama should do is plunge full-bore into the alternative energy industry…..spend tax dollars to create new jobs in a new and promising industry where customer demand will follow. More construction and infrastructure jobs should also be created. We all get something out of jobs like that.

Throwing an across-the-board tax-credit hiring bone to nonsensical conservatives without lasering in on targeted industries is simply a waste of time and money.

"….giving them a variety of tax credits or tax breaks…."

I take tax breaks as tax cuts

my subject was tax cuts….if my subject was tax credits I would have said tax credits….Duh

Walt just a question. Do you favor a communist or socialist govt over a free capitalist society?

Reverend,
I agree with you quite a bit. What HAS to happen is that our overleveraged country must deleverage. There is no alternative. Anything else is just delaying the inevitable. As painful as it will be, we have to dump our debt (government, individual) one way or another to restore our prospects for the future. We've brought this upon ourselves. Still, tax credits for hiring workers is a reasonable stopgap measure. It won't hurt, as long as the government cuts spending by the same amount as the credits (this is where things always fall apart, because the government is a ravenous beast that is never satiated).

I'm all for pursuing alternative energy, but the private sector will bring it about when it's price marketable. The government can't prop it up and make it work. We always make that mistake (think ethanol, Amtrak, etc.). It never works. We don't need the government to produce the Toyota Prius, for example, or the CFL. Those things work because there's an advantage to them and the public will purchase them.

Exactly King. Like peak oil, we have hit peak govt spending as well as much personal spending. Spending now to stimulate the economy would be a great idea if we had paid back previous stimuolous and weren't already having to borrow wealth from other countries to pay our bills as well printing cash endlessly. Tell the bank you need a loan each month to pay your car payment and see what happens.