Raise The Debt Limit Already!

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Not what I asked. But I find it interesting that your response implies that both policies Obama's entire presidency were utter failures.

 

fixed for ya, no need to get specific enough to take away from his multitude of failures

[The Big Cat]

fixed for ya, no need to get specific enough to take away from his multitude of failures

 

0-3 so far.

[GG]

Could somebody please answer this question?

 

I'm not asking to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

 

And please don't fire back with some remark about me being an idiot or a leftist dolt. If there's an answer to this question, it doesn't require an accompanying insult.

 

Thank you.

 

The question has been answered all over the thread. It's a bit of a chicken & egg situation in a demand driven economy that grotwh won't resume until confidence returns, which won't return as long as people are concerned about their jobs, which won't be coming as employers continue to pare staff to maintain profitability as they see rising costs ahead.

 

If you want a school yard anlogy, employers are the kid with the ball, and Obama is the guy making fun of the kid with the ball. That kid may be onboxious as hell, but it's his ball. So after a while, he gets tired of Obama making fun of him, so he takes his ball and goes home.

[Peace]

Not what I asked. But I find it interesting that your response implies that both policies were utter failures.

 

EDIT: If you're being sarcastic, I apologize. I've lost my meter with some of the personalities round these parts.

 

It's hard to interpret your dialect that I perceive as a regional mix of troll and idiot. The question you ask is "Where are the job creators whose asses we are kissing, creating all of these jobs?"

 

To which I responded that the stimulus created no jobs, or none of great significance.

 

Asked and answered.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Peace

[The Big Cat]

The question has been answered all over the thread. It's a bit of a chicken & egg situation in a demand driven economy that grotwh won't resume until confidence returns, which won't return as long as people are concerned about their jobs, which won't be coming as employers continue to pare staff to maintain profitability as they see rising costs ahead.

 

If you want a school yard anlogy, employers are the kid with the ball, and Obama is the guy making fun of the kid with the ball. That kid may be onboxious as hell, but it's his ball. So after a while, he gets tired of Obama making fun of him, so he takes his ball and goes home.

 

So why were job creators content to play with their balls while Bush was still in office? After all, the cuts were around for a longer period of time than the totality of the Obama administration, to date. The first part of your response makes total sense, but when you spin it as an Obama issue, it doesn't address the fact that the two series of cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003, with 5-7 years left under Bush's watch. What was the rationale then?

 

 

It's hard to interpret your dialect that I perceive as a regional mix of troll and idiot. The question you ask is "Where are the job creators whose asses we are kissing, creating all of these jobs?"

 

To which I responded that the stimulus created no jobs, or none of great significance.

 

Asked and answered.

 

You're the only person in this exchange who's talking about the stimulus.

Edited July 20, 2011 by The Big Cat

[DC Tom]

So why were job creators content to play with their balls while Bush was still in office? After all, the cuts were around for a longer period of time than the totality of the Obama administration, to date. The first part of your response makes total sense, but when you spin it as an Obama issue, it doesn't address the fact that the two series of cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003, with 5-7 years left under Bush's watch. What was the rationale then?

 

Why are you talking about cuts now?

 

It's a simple fact: the job creators are fearful in an uncertain business environment (for a large variety of reasons, many not related to the government), and thus limiting their expansion. There's a lot of different details that go in to that (health care, Frank-Dodd, low consumer purchasing power, weak housing market dragging the economy, etc.) but they all basically amount to "We can't predict our situation in four years, so we're playing it close to the vest."

 

 

And please don't fire back with some remark about me being an idiot or a leftist dolt. If there's an answer to this question, it doesn't require an accompanying insult.

 

This is PPP. And I'm me. You're an idiot, you leftist dolt.

[IDBillzFan]

So why were job creators content to play with their balls while Bush was still in office? After all, the cuts were around for a longer period of time than the totality of the Obama administration, to date. The first part of your response makes total sense, but when you spin it as an Obama issue, it doesn't address the fact that the two series of cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003, with 5-7 years left under Bush's watch. What was the rationale then?

 

 

 

 

You're the only person in this exchange who's talking about the stimulus.

Do you have a job? Is your company hiring? Expanding? Opening new offices?

[The Big Cat]

Why are you talking about cuts now?

 

It's a simple fact: the job creators are fearful in an uncertain business environment (for a large variety of reasons, many not related to the government), and thus limiting their expansion. There's a lot of different details that go in to that (health care, Frank-Dodd, low consumer purchasing power, weak housing market dragging the economy, etc.) but they all basically amount to "We can't predict our situation in four years, so we're playing it close to the vest."

 

 

 

 

This is PPP. And I'm me. You're an idiot, you leftist dolt.

 

So, as long as the uncertainty exists for so many reasons OTHER than taxes, why not boost them to generate revenue, in the short run? Or, on the flip side, why not bottom them out to generate growth, in the short run?

 

I see both as having long term/short term disadvantages and advantages. I just don't understand why the "job creators" have their balls in a death grip whenever taxes come up, particularly because--as you point out--job growth is unlikely to be affected by any one factor, and thus probably wouldn't have any impact on the climate as we know it now OR for the next four years...

 

It just seems like empty political rhetoric that's meant to hold-hostage the notion of raising taxes. The reality seems to be that "job creators" are actually holding their guns to the heads of zombies, thus rendering their threats meaningless.

 

Do you have a job? Is your company hiring? Expanding? Opening new offices?

 

Yes. Kinda. Always. No.

Edited July 20, 2011 by The Big Cat

[Dan]

Do you have a job? Is your company hiring? Expanding? Opening new offices?

I do. And, yes, we are hiring and expanding. I haven't opened a new office this year, but we opened 2 last year. I'll be traveling next week looking to expand into another region.

 

For me.... my business grows and shrinks based on the amont of work I do and has little to do with potentially new taxes, laws, or regulations.

[Rob's House]

Could somebody please answer this question?

 

I'm not asking to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious.

 

And please don't fire back with some remark about me being an idiot or a leftist dolt. If there's an answer to this question, it doesn't require an accompanying insult.

 

Thank you.

Businesses don't create jobs out of some perverse sense of civic duty or out of obligation due to having their asses kissed. I find it interesting that by only continuing to take over 1/3 of their income off the top we are therefore kissing their ass. It's an interesting and bizarre point of view. Of course, so is the idea that individual businesses would start hiring people when they have no immediate need for more labor and don't expect an increase in that need for the foreseeable future.

[DC Tom]

So, as long as the uncertainty exists for so many reasons OTHER than taxes, why not boost them to generate revenue, in the short run? Or, on the flip side, why not bottom them out to generate growth, in the short run?

 

I see both as having long term/short term disadvantages and advantages. I just don't understand why the "job creators" have their balls in a death grip whenever taxes come up, particularly because--as you point out--job growth is unlikely to be affected by any one factor, and thus probably wouldn't have any impact on the climate as we know it now OR for the next four years...

 

It just seems like empty political rhetoric that's meant to hold-hostage the notion of raising taxes. The reality seems to be that "job creators" are actually holding their guns to the heads of zombies, thus rendering their threats meaningless.

 

What "their" are you talking about that job creators have "their" balls in a vice? Republicans? They put their own balls in a vice, by making campaign promises of "no tax hikes".

 

 

One simple fact that people seem to forget: no buisness hires (at least no sane business hires) just for the sake of hiring; you have to have a business reason for expanding staff. Everything else is secondary. No one is going to say "Oh, my taxes are lower/higher, I'm going to run out and hire/fire some people." They WILL say (at the risk of over-simplifying) "My business is expanding/contracting; I need to hire/fire some people." Or "In six weeks/months/years I anticipate needing/losing staff for the amount of business I'll be doing, I'd better start expanding/contracting now." No one is going to hire just because of the tax rate.

 

Rather, the worry about higher tax rates is a long-term worry about constricting economic growth (higher tax rates = less discretionay income for expenditures), which WILL impact job rates, being linked to that whole "business purpose" thingy. Ditto health care, Frank-Dodd, the inflationary pressure of $13T in debt, a distinctly unfriendly lending environment, a drag-ass housing market...a lot of things have to be resolved before the business community as a whole can even start making coherent long-term plans that would lead to expansion and hiring, which is where the whole "uncertain environment" thing comes in.

 

 

 

And I'm calling you an idiot again...just because I'm in a bad mood.

[The Big Cat]

What "their" are you talking about that job creators have "their" balls in a vice? Republicans? They put their own balls in a vice, by making campaign promises of "no tax hikes".

 

 

One simple fact that people seem to forget: no buisness hires (at least no sane business hires) just for the sake of hiring; you have to have a business reason for expanding staff. Everything else is secondary. No one is going to say "Oh, my taxes are lower/higher, I'm going to run out and hire/fire some people." They WILL say (at the risk of over-simplifying) "My business is expanding/contracting; I need to hire/fire some people." Or "In six weeks/months/years I anticipate needing/losing staff for the amount of business I'll be doing, I'd better start expanding/contracting now." No one is going to hire just because of the tax rate.

 

Rather, the worry about higher tax rates is a long-term worry about constricting economic growth (higher tax rates = less discretionay income for expenditures), which WILL impact job rates, being linked to that whole "business purpose" thingy. Ditto health care, Frank-Dodd, the inflationary pressure of $13T in debt, a distinctly unfriendly lending environment, a drag-ass housing market...a lot of things have to be resolved before the business community as a whole can even start making coherent long-term plans that would lead to expansion and hiring, which is where the whole "uncertain environment" thing comes in.

 

 

 

And I'm calling you an idiot again...just because I'm in a bad mood.

 

"Their balls" was in reference to GG's playground analogy wherein they = job creators and balls were the keys to the kingdom, aka jobs.

Edited July 20, 2011 by The Big Cat

[DC Tom]

"Their balls" was in reference to GG's playground analogy wherein they = job creators and balls were the keys to the kingdom, aka jobs.

 

Truthfully, it wasn't all that good an analogy, particularly for job creation. Yes, the business community and the administration are at odds (to put it mildly - "at each other's throats" wouldn't be entirely hyperbole). But no one's sitting out there saying "I need to hire...but !@#$ Obama, I'm not going to. That'll show him." Businesses act in the interest of their business...which only includes the government AND consumer to the point that it impacts their business.

[Magox]

I do. And, yes, we are hiring and expanding. I haven't opened a new office this year, but we opened 2 last year. I'll be traveling next week looking to expand into another region.

 

For me.... my business grows and shrinks based on the amont of work I do and has little to do with potentially new taxes, laws, or regulations.

Mine do, as god as my witness, the Dodd Frank Bill passed last year and signed into law by the Obama Adminstration is forcing me to liquidate all of my clients and I estimate that I will only be able to retain somewhere in between 50-70% of my clients. The clearing house that I deal with is who has to do the force liquidations and they estimate that somewhere around 100 jobs will be lost, I've already had to let go one of the two office managers I have, and two brokers have already decided to leave, considering we've had no work for close to a month now. I am a perfect example of how non sensical regulations are hurting this economy. I also have two clients that are oil drillerrs in LA. and they both have told me that their business had gone down due to the oil moratoria and that one of the servicers of the oil riggs that left the gulf of mexicos business has had to shut down due to that rig being its primary client.

 

I also had my brokers prospect in that area, and one of the questions I would make sure that they would ask is "has the oil moratoria affected your business?" and appromixamtely 80% said yes, and it's not just the rigs, but the collateral damage caused on their respective communiities that depend on these revenues to filter into their towns.

 

Let me also add that taxes as of right now is playing a small role in the lack of jobs, sure the uncertainty is playing a role, but I estimate a fairly small one.

 

Truthfully, it wasn't all that good an analogy, particularly for job creation. Yes, the business community and the administration are at odds (to put it mildly - "at each other's throats" wouldn't be entirely hyperbole). But no one's sitting out there saying "I need to hire...but !@#$ Obama, I'm not going to. That'll show him." Businesses act in the interest of their business...which only includes the government AND consumer to the point that it impacts their business.

I couldnt of said it better. No need to demonize businesses for sitting on cash, they are doing it for a reason, and trust me they would be hiring if they thought it was best for their business. Another factor that people have to consider is that this latest severe downturn was a phenomenal opportunity for businesses to cut back on their overhead. One thing I had observed of this downturn was the amazing ability of these companies to operate at full efficiency. They are learning to do more with less, as technology and software improves this will continue to be a negative for job growth (at least for now until innovation and job growth learn to workt withone another hand in hand) and espcially now with soaring health care costs, and the uncertainity of the mandates by the health insurance law, you can pretty much bet that job growth will be restrained.

 

No matter who is president, job growth would be sluggish, but without a doubt, Obama's policies, legislations (dodd frank/ healthinsurance law), epa regulations and uncertainty over taxes (and liberals incessant need to demonize the rich) job growth could be better with someone else in there, I believe most rational non partisan people can agree with that.

 

In regards to the housing market and inflation (gas/food prices), these problems that we were gonna see regardless, no matter who was in the white house. China's and emerging market growth is gonna happen regardless of what happens, and the BenBernank isn't helping either with his flawed strategy of attempting to devalue the dollar in order to stimulate growth. Unfortunately the stock market is addicted to this like a junkiie is to crack. Who deosnt like cheap money? if you create more dollars out of thin air , the value of **** goes up, including stocks (until the big bubble pops that is) gas, food etc.

 

Housing is just a mess, and the W.H's prescription of forwarding sales like they did last year didn't do any good other than delay the inevitable. That's the problem with many politicians, they look for the quick answer, they look for solutions that will give them immediate results such as the stimulus bill. what did that do? yeah sure you can give the standart talking point that "It saved us from going into a depression." which of course that talking point was created AFTER the promise of the bills stated purpose was suppose to prevent us from going up above 8% unemployment. Now that we know that it failed on that count, its difficult to give the apologizers and W.H surrogates credence to their claims of preventing a "depression"

 

Much of that money went in preventing layofs in the state and local government levels. Yes it did achieve that, but that was for only 1 year, those layoffs occured in year two and now wil continue into year three. Why? because state and local governments were operating off of the Housing Boom's bubble tax revenues, so those jobs needed to be trimmed down.. Once again, looking for the quick solution, which of course doesnt address any of the structural problems that we have today.

[DC Tom]

Mine do, as god as my witness, the Dodd Frank Bill passed last year and signed into law by the Obama Adminstration is forcing me to liquidate all of my clients and I estimate that I will only be able to retain somewhere in between 50-70% of my clients. The clearing house that I deal with is who has to do the force liquidations and they estimate that somewhere around 100 jobs will be lost, I've already had to let go one of the two office managers I have, and two brokers have already decided to leave, considering we've had no work for close to a month now. I am a perfect example of how non sensical regulations are hurting this economy. I also have two clients that are oil drillerrs in LA. and they both have told me that their business had gone down due to the oil moratoria and that one of the servicers of the oil riggs that left the gulf of mexicos business has had to shut down due to that rig being its primary client.

 

I also had my brokers prospect in that area, and one of the questions I would make sure that they would ask is "has the oil moratoria affected your business?" and appromixamtely 80% said yes, and it's not just the rigs, but the collateral damage caused on their respective communiities that depend on these revenues to filter into their towns.

 

Let me also add that taxes as of right now is playing a small role in the lack of jobs, sure the uncertainty is playing a role, but I estimate a fairly small one.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how badly you say Frank-Dodd (or Dodd-Frank? I've heard it both ways, which is right?) !@#$ed up your industry. I only know it from the housing/lending side, and as screwed up as that is (guess what? Under Frank-Dodd, you can follow HUD regulations, or Treasury regulations, but not both. Every real estate transaction performed under Frank-Dodd is illegal. ), your experience seems to be an order of magnitude worse.

[IDBillzFan]

Much of that money went in preventing layofs in the state and local government levels. Yes it did achieve that, but that was for only 1 year, those layoffs occured in year two and now wil continue into year three. Why? because state and local governments were operating off of the Housing Boom's bubble tax revenues, so those jobs needed to be trimmed down.. Once again, looking for the quick solution, which of course doesnt address any of the structural problems that we have today.

Something defenders of the stimulus bill fail to realize is that it was, to a large extent, Cash for Clunkers on steroids. It modified a result that was going to happen anyway for the short-term perception of "things are getting better."

 

While hacks like me piss-n-moan about idiotic stimulus things like spending money on grape genetics, the core of the stimulus is precisely what you described above. I watched Paul Ryan interviewed on CNBC recently where he explained that the stimulus plan didn't fail because of intent, but because of execution. Most of the money never went to areas that would as least theoretically stimulate the economy, and that people who refer to it as "Keynesian economics" are wrong because very little of the stimulus plan adhered to the Keynesian principles.

[Magox]

It never ceases to amaze me how badly you say Frank-Dodd (or Dodd-Frank? I've heard it both ways, which is right?) !@#$ed up your industry. I only know it from the housing/lending side, and as screwed up as that is (guess what? Under Frank-Dodd, you can follow HUD regulations, or Treasury regulations, but not both. Every real estate transaction performed under Frank-Dodd is illegal. ), your experience seems to be an order of magnitude worse.

I've already began on Plan B and it very well may end up being a better deal, the worst part about the whole deal is the clients that are going to be lost in the shuffle. When money gets sent back home, many times it never comes back

 

Thats ok, I've rebuilt books many times before and I'll do it again.

Edited July 20, 2011 by Magox

[GG]

Truthfully, it wasn't all that good an analogy, particularly for job creation. Yes, the business community and the administration are at odds (to put it mildly - "at each other's throats" wouldn't be entirely hyperbole). But no one's sitting out there saying "I need to hire...but !@#$ Obama, I'm not going to. That'll show him." Businesses act in the interest of their business...which only includes the government AND consumer to the point that it impacts their business.

 

Actually it is a good analogy because not all hiring is demand based. A lot of hiring is for new ventures, start ups & small businesses. When you have an uncertain environment, coupled with a greater probability that the uncertainty will lead to a worsening financial situation in a few years, you are far better off to raise profits by squeezing more productivity out of your existing employees and milk existing business units than to grow. That's why M&A has been a big driver of profits - increase your sales & cut costs at the same time.

 

So, as long as business can't trust Obama, they'll continue to grow profit through productivity (to the extent they still can) - which is the equivalent of taking their ball & going home.

[DC Tom]

So let me see if I have this straight: we have a health care law that forbids denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions...meaning that you can purchase insurance "as needed". And the law also fines people for not carrying insurance, with fines that are at best on par with the cost of insurance coverage.

 

And now we're discussing a bill that reduces - rather significantly - the tax deductions for health insurance, thus making it more expensive to carry insurance.

 

 

In ten years' time, when some numbnuts says "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time," I will be the first to say "No, it really didn't."

[GG]

So let me see if I have this straight: we have a health care law that forbids denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions...meaning that you can purchase insurance "as needed". And the law also fines people for not carrying insurance, with fines that are at best on par with the cost of insurance coverage.

 

And now we're discussing a bill that reduces - rather significantly - the tax deductions for health insurance, thus making it more expensive to carry insurance.

 

 

In ten years' time, when some numbnuts says "Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time," I will be the first to say "No, it really didn't."

 

Never mind that one of the ways that Obamacare would remain solvent is to cut Medicare reimbursements by 30%.

 

And again, maybe not if we believe one of the shining progressive lights, "Incredulously, the gentlemen from Florida who represents thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, as do I, is supportive of this plan that would increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries, unbelievable from a member from South Florida."

 

From that quote, I'm guessing that any savings that Obamacare is set to achieve are toast, because we can't let grandmas in South Florida die.