U.S. Economy Adds Only 80,000 Jobs In June

[ttelise]

The unemployment rate when Bush left office was approximately ... 8 percent.

Perhaps you can get a job with the DNC, as you have their rhetoric down pat.

Before I get started, let me qualify this by saying that I voted for Obama in the last election. I, like many moderates saw a need for a change and the right offered nothing but the status quo in the last election, with an injection of whacko in Sarah Palin. Obama actually sounded sincere in his advocacy for change, so he got my vote. After 3.5 years of Obama's incessant blaming everything on prior administrations and doing absolutely nothing to improve the state of the country, I will not vote for him again. If anything, it appears that his positions, tactics and lack of engagement in the political process makes it appear that he is intentionally trying to bring down the country. His own people say that he prefers the limelight to the nitty-gritty of grinding out policy.

Now this thread is about jobs, so I better comment on that so my post doesn't get the ax. It is NOT the job of the US government to create jobs. It is the job of the US government to provide an environment by which business' create jobs. You do not create an environment which is conducive to business growth through punitive regulations, uncertain future tax requirements, double taxation on repatriated earnings from overseas, paralysis from the government and the highest corporate tax rate on the planet. Uncertainty does not breed confidence. Is it any wonder why companies are not hiring?

The US government seems to think that it is a company's responsibility to create jobs. It is not. A companies soul purpose is to return profits to it's shareholders. Full stop. US manufacturing has been gutted over the last 30 years as companies moved offshore to escape US regulations, labor unions, high tax rates and labor costs. Those jobs will not come back unless there is an incentive to do so. We now live in a global economy, so just because someone is born American, doesn't mean they have to operate a business based in the US to have access to that market. I recently heard an interview with a Dem Senator where he stated that is was the moral obligation of every American company owner to hire more employees. I almost pissed myself laughing, as would anyone else who has ever been in business. The good Senator most likely has never owned a business in the private sector.

The US government also thinks it is their responsibility to create jobs. It is not. The role of the government is to provide security and common social services, all to be provided for through taxation. There is no reason that the government should not be able to balance their budget, just as you and I are required to do. The plethora of government agencies is astounding, all manned by good little bureaucrats whose soul purpose is to justify their existence by creating more rules and regulations to further inhibit the populace.

Security should not include billions of USD to be sunk into black projects, of which the only people to benefit are the elites. Nor is it the role of the government to be the world's cop, sticking their nose into affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the US. I for one see it as a positive that government jobs are being cut. I truly am looking forward to the mandatory military budget cuts that go into effect next year. The f'tards in the military industrial complex are just itching to kick off another war to justify their existence.

The bottom line is that the jobs picture in the US will not improve for a long, long time. The US needs 150,000 new jobs per month just to keep up with new people being added to the labor market. A GDP of 1.9% doesn't get you there. This is not only dictated by events in the US, but world wide. ISM numbers are declining across the planet. This is a leading indicator that we are slipping back toward a world wide recession.

Whew, that felt good. rant off.

Look, politicians want jobs. Corporations give a crap less about jobs and care more about PE ratios and reducing costs. What sucks is money government and Fed is pumping into corporate America to induce corporate America to create jobs, yet corporate America just trickles that money upward to it's executives and to shareholders. Sucks for us tax layers as we are just making executives fatter because money is being misallocated.

Truth is, corporate America has both te Republican party and the Federal Reserve in it's pocket so Obama and democrats have a lot less influence than you give them credit.

Too many people yet technology is advancing eliminating huge blocks of lower middle class jobs. Look at all of the cashiers that have been replaced across the country by self checkout at grocery stories and large retail stores. Executives cut those jobs, save the companies billions, and in turn get bug fat bonuses and share holders get larger dividends. Nothing can be done really to stop it, especially with higher minimum wage in US.

You sound like someone that subscribes to the Occupy Wall Street point of view. Lot's of opinions and few facts.

The US g'ment, the Fed, nor the Treasury has invested a single dime into corporate America with the exception of TARP, which was a stopgap measure to prevent insolvency in the banking systems. The TARP investments have been 50% repaid, with interest, by the banks. Please show me one instance where the US g'ment has made an investment into the private sector. You can't because they haven't done it. They can vote for subsidies for specific industries, such as solar, which we all know has been such a huge success.

Just how do you substantiate your claim that the Fed is in the pocket of corporate America? Corporate America is the only part of the equation that is working. Corporate profits have been up, despite the poor economy. What does that tell you? It means that corporate America has done what it needs to do to insure not only their survival, but growth. The size and scope of the g'ment is choking the life blood of the country. Corporate America sees it, so do the Republicans. The Dems are only concerned about their entitlements and more social services, that someone else pays for.

The lower middle class is being pinched because these are the folks that used to have the manufacturing jobs that have moved overseas. That and service industry jobs which have now been taken by emigrants who will work longer hours for less money. The bulk on the unemployment in the US is in this group. The unemployment rate for a college educated IT professional in the US in around 2%, while the unemployment rate for high school educated factory workers is over 12%. Seems pretty simple to me. You want to work in an advanced society, you either have the tools or you don't.

It sounds as if you believe that the government and companies owe these people some type of existence whether they have the ability to contribute to society or not. In other words, a socialist.

Operation Twist, QE 1 & 2.

I am in the 1 percent so I don't abide by the theory that anyone owes anyone anything. I put myself and paid my way through Ivy League schools and post graduate degrees.

I worked as an investment banker from 89 to 92 and then went to law school. Wife's an investment banker and I do a lot of class action security cases against banks and investment firms.

I currently very active in CMO/REMIC/REIT litigation, I have arbitrated or settled close to a hundred James Kelso Morgan Keegan CMO/CDO junk bond fund cases and I am currently pursuing a class action against MERS Corp on behalf of the Court Clerks in my State for recording fees which relates to separation of title from security to securitize CMOs leading to broken chain of title on real estate, the AIG credit swaps and the implosion of our financial markets in 07/08.

I have been living, sleeping, eating and litigating this stuff since 2008. I have a fair idea of the underlying problems with our economy.

That being said, everyone has their own ideas about the problem and the solution, but what I stated above is the fundamental underlying problem that cannot be resolved by government intervention.

Will we see QE 3 is the bigger question right now, I hope not as REAL CPI is already about 9 or 10 percent, but artifically reported at an acceptable level of around 3 based on this new basket substitution method of calculating CPI. QE 3 could feasibly throw us into a hyperinflation. These artificial measures to keep our economy afloat will eventually catch up to us and are basically not having the intended effect of creating jobs or trickling down to middle class. The government and Fed has made money available, but corporations are just using to increase PEs, executive salaries and return to shareholders.

[koheesti]

People so quickly forget how much of a downward spiraling crap hole the States were in due to the Bush reign before Obama took office and turned things around.

TWO YEARS before the economic crisis in Sept 2008, the Democrats won control of both the Senate and House of Representatives (Nov 2006). It was all downhill from there.

The Democrats first full month in control was Feb 2007. According the the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate has been steadily climbing since May 2007 (1.5 years BEFORE the crash). Bush's last full month in office was Dec 2008 and the unemployment rate was 7.3%.

Don't take my word for it, read their handy chart for yourself:

http://data.bls.gov/...ies/LNS14000000

Edited July 8, 2012 by koheesti

[Woodcaulk]

The government and Fed has made money available, but corporations are just using to increase PEs, executive salaries and return to shareholders.

As they should be. Why in the name of Zeuss' butthole would one expand their business knowing that on Jan. 1st if Obama is re-elected tax rates will increase not to mention the aggressive way he is using the EPA and other regulatories to stick the knife into small business as well as corporate America?

All that before even mentioning the hell that is due to unfold with all the anti-business regulation and hidden taxes of his healthscare trojan horse. This bad intentioned individual has been quite successful so far at furthering the destruction of the U.S. economy and as you point out about QE3 and the prospect of hyper-inflation the worst is yet to come if he is still residing at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. come 22 Jan 2013.

* Inflation is coming regardless as the only way the national debt can ever be paid down is to do it with cheaper dollars.

[ttelise]

The government and Fed has made money available, but corporations are just using to increase PEs, executive salaries and return to shareholders.

As they should be. Why in the name of Zeuss' butthole would one expand their business knowing that on Jan. 1st if Obama is re-elected tax rates will increase not to mention the aggressive way he is using the EPA and other regulatories to stick the knife into small business as well as corporate America?

All that before even mentioning the hell that is due to unfold with all the anti-business regulation and hidden taxes of his healthscare trojan horse. This bad intentioned individual has been quite successful so far at furthering the destruction of the U.S. economy and as you point out about QE3 and the prospect of hyper-inflation the worst is yet to come if he is still residing at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. come 22 Jan 2013.

* Inflation is coming regardless as the only way the national debt can ever be paid down is to do it with cheaper dollars.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of operation twist or QE 1 or 2. Coroporate balance sheets and PE ratios were already as healthy as they had been in many years over the course of the last couple of years and during QE 1 & 2 and Operation Twist. In fact, PE ratios and corporate balance sheets were as healthy as I had ever seen last year when the market corrected in Q3 and Q4 of 2011.

The Fed and arguably the government attempted to pump more money into economy so business would expand and put people back to work, not so executives and stock holders could reap larger bonuses and better returns. The rest of what you say is just rhetoric. I am only identifying the problem with the job market and how government measures and the Fed's actions are not working and why they are not working. Everyone wants to complain about unemployment, but no one wants to step up and offer a solution or accept responsibility to resolve the problem.

I personally don't care and I pay enough in taxes each year to pay cash for a house so I should perhaps care more. I love the people that complain about taxes and whine about the system yet they pay either no taxes or just a few thousand a year in taxes. Coporations should also pay taxes . . . This is not the point so not sure why you bring it up.

My original point (before you guys elected to quote small portions out of context) is simply that there are too many workers (in part because now both husband and wife are forced to enter the workforce) and there are too few jobs to support all of these workers in part due to technology replacing the need for human workers. Government incentives to expand the economy no longer trickle down (ala Reaganomics) as any incentives provided by government to expand the economy and hire workers are simply retained by businesses to enhance their PE ratios and those benefits now trickle up or horrizontally.

I agree it is the way it is and it will just get worse from here on out. I, however, am pretty much immune to it in my profession and in fact seem to make even more money when the economy sags . . .

[Ulysses G.]

I agree it is the way it is and it will just get worse from here on out. I, however, am pretty much immune to it in my profession and in fact seem to make even more money when the economy sags . . .

Warren Buffett is posting on Thai Visa?

[ttelise]

People so quickly forget how much of a downward spiraling crap hole the States were in due to the Bush reign before Obama took office and turned things around.

TWO YEARS before the economic crisis in Sept 2008, the Democrats won control of both the Senate and House of Representatives (Nov 2006). It was all downhill from there.

The Democrats first full month in control was Feb 2007. According the the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate has been steadily climbing since May 2007 (1.5 years BEFORE the crash). Bush's last full month in office was Dec 2008 and the unemployment rate was 7.3%.

Don't take my word for it, read their handy chart for yourself:

http://data.bls.gov/...ies/LNS14000000

Missing boat big time. Loss of jobs in 2007 dud not cause crisis in 2007. Crisis caused job loss.

The implosion of our economy was way more complicated than you apparently realize. A synopsis of it is this:

Banks got really greedy from about 2001 until about 2007, so did brokerage houses and certain insurance companies.

Banks were writing paper for anything and everything regardless of credit or ability to repay. The mentaility was simple, they would bundle the risky loans together, securitize them, and sell these bundled notes as a security in the form of either a REMIC or a bond known as a CMO. This way, the bank got their money back when they bundled and sold the securities and then become a servicer for the individual loans contained in the securities.

Most of the bonds were actually sold to China and our government, in their inffinite wisdom during 2002 to 2007, thought hey, let's guarantee these bonds comprised of bundled up high risk, under secured, B & C credit paper. Why Fannie, Freddy and Ginnie decided to do this is bizare as I can think of no other private bonds that the government decided to guarantee. Why they picked this high risk stuff is open for debate, but had a lot to do with politicians in power at that time. This made the bs securities more marketable and easier to sell to the Chinese or anyone else wanting to buy them. Kind of like they knew they would fail . . . So the tax payer now gets to pay off the Chinese while banks and everyone got their money . . .

Sorry for digression, but in walks AIG during this time frame. They came up with a brilliant idea called a credit swap. This was basically a hedge or bet the banks could take effectively betting on the failure of or default of the CMO bonds. When lower tranches would be close to default, they would simply fraction it out again and bundle it with more risky paper on the bet if they bundled it with enough paper, the law of averages would pay off and default would be avoided.

Well, it did not work. First round of defaults in 2007 forced the Fed Reserve to step in and start reviewing and reclassifying loans to reflect proper risk rating. Fed reserve investigations basically froze all lending. Damage had already been done though and TARP was needed to get reserves back in line or banks would have failed left and right.

The net effect of the initial 2007 default surge (CMO bonds defaulting and AIG not able to meet credit swap payouts) resulted in banks tightening credit. No one could get loans and we had record number of houses being built that could not be sold. No one could buy or sell so builders and developers ended up in default and bankrupt really quickly.

Now the big problem. To bundled and securitize millions of loans to create CMOs and REMIC/REITs and etc., banks had to seperate the title from the security. The banks created MERS Corp to record title changes amd avoid paying recording fees. Banks stopped recording changes of title back in 2001 with the clerks so chain of title for millions of properties is now broken. The mortages were bundled, divided and sold and then they were bundled divided and resold again and again and again to the point where no one can say for sure who actually owns the security interest in any given property involving a securitized mortgage.

Perhaps thousands or millions of Chinese would own a fractional share in any given property securing a CMO bond. REMICs not so complicated because the trust actually retained the security interest. The CMO though is a nightmare because the net effect is that there is no legal way to foreclose on properties. The banks cannot foreclose because they bundled and sold the paper and are only the servicers (they collect mortgage payments, pay to bond and bond distributes payment to tranches). The individual bond holders effectively own the interest in the security. These chinese bond holders don't care about the foreclosure though and will never bring such an action because they effectively still get paid when there is a default by the guarantor I mentioned above (Fannie, Freddy or Ginnie).

So we have millions and millions of residential porperties in default that cannot be foreclsoed on because no one except the bond holders technically have standing to bring the foreclosure action. This, is addition to tight credit and banks not lending, has led to real estate values plummeting and everyone being upside down. In Florida, no Banks will lend on condos if their is a front desk, cleaning service and a certain percentage of the units are for short term rentals. I personally have purchased many condos for $ 40k to $ 60K that were once once $ 400k to 500K. Residential is not so bad down here. Typically, a million dollar house is worht about $ 400k now. The amount of foreclosures are astnoshing though. There are 4 million dollar homes that have been in foreclosure for several yearsd being rented at $ 1,000 a month by friends of mine. Several hundred thousand foreclosures were dimsised in Florida alone last year because no one has standing to bring the foreclsoure action.

This mess is far from over. I know for a fact that Bank of American alone is reserving a $ 100,000,000,000 to settle the collateralized mortage litigation. We will probably see a TARP II once this starts panning out. I think everybody is just putting it on the back burner to try and get the economy and banks a bit stronger before hitting them again.

The above only addresses the mortage market. Banks, brokerage comapnies and insurance companies effectively did the same thing between 2001 and 2007 with commercial paper or debt known as a CDO. Save that for another day, but you should get the picture how this works out . . .

Edited July 9, 2012 by ttelise

[rijb]

I believe the first step to improving the government (and the economy) is term limits for congress.

Until they reverse Citizens United, which unleashed billions of corporate dollars into the election process, the last thing we need are more new politicians, as only the corporations biggest cheerleaders will be able to raise enough money to get elected. Voter education and fighting voter apathy is far more effective than term limits. If an elected official fails to represent the people, they can always vote them out. The people have no one to blame but themselves if they keep electing a poor leader. But if the person is a very good leader (rare among politicians but still possible), there is no reason they should not be reelected just because other politicians get worse with age. You need to have some experience in politics. Just look at the gridlock in DC right now, as all these completely unexperienced tea party people have no idea that government requires COMPROMISE. It always has and always will, you cannot purport to represent all people by completely ignoring the half of them who did not vote for you.

You could make the same argument for the presidential office. The "no one to blame" argument doesn't make sense (Putin?). There are more pros than cons for term limits. http://tenurecorrupts.com/arguments.html

[Scott]

The thread is about Jobs.

[rijb]

And I believe congress has more power to create jobs than the president or the greedy banks.

[jalansanitwong]

The unemployemt rate in any country is a waste of time and means nothing because its so easily manipulated particularly in welfare states ie Europe ,Australia and now USA under Obama.

What we need is an EMPLOYMENT RATE. You cant manipulate that statistic. Youre either employed and paying taxes fulltime or youre not.

If this formula were used in Australia the employment rate would be about 85-90% thus 10 - 15% unemployment, not 5.2% which PMGillard boasts about.

USA ? 85% F/T & P/T employment , say 15% unemployment rate?

Obama will be re-elected simply because he will guarantee pensions to millions including immigrants.

The Mormon Romney wont be so generous.

Edited July 9, 2012 by jalansanitwong

[rijb]

I'm not the only who believes that congress has the power to create jobs. Case in point: http://content.usato.../1#.T_o8Po6UBFQ

Edited July 9, 2012 by rijb

[chuckd]

I found this particularly interesting in today's news. While some might think the Republicans have no plan, it would seem there are some states that might think otherwise.

_______________________________________________________

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPPED IN EVERY STATE THAT ELECTED A REPUBLICAN GOV. IN 2010

by TONY LEE 8 Jul 2012, 6:24 AM PDT

In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate.

Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner:

Read the remaining article here: http://www.breitbart...can-Gov-In-2010

[Woodcaulk]

The government and Fed has made money available, but corporations are just using to increase PEs, executive salaries and return to shareholders.

As they should be. Why in the name of Zeuss' butthole would one expand their business knowing that on Jan. 1st if Obama is re-elected tax rates will increase not to mention the aggressive way he is using the EPA and other regulatories to stick the knife into small business as well as corporate America?

All that before even mentioning the hell that is due to unfold with all the anti-business regulation and hidden taxes of his healthscare trojan horse. This bad intentioned individual has been quite successful so far at furthering the destruction of the U.S. economy and as you point out about QE3 and the prospect of hyper-inflation the worst is yet to come if he is still residing at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. come 22 Jan 2013.

* Inflation is coming regardless as the only way the national debt can ever be paid down is to do it with cheaper dollars.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of operation twist or QE 1 or 2. Coroporate balance sheets and PE ratios were already as healthy as they had been in many years over the course of the last couple of years and during QE 1 & 2 and Operation Twist. In fact, PE ratios and corporate balance sheets were as healthy as I had ever seen last year when the market corrected in Q3 and Q4 of 2011.

The Fed and arguably the government attempted to pump more money into economy so business would expand and put people back to work, not so executives and stock holders could reap larger bonuses and better returns. The rest of what you say is just rhetoric. I am only identifying the problem with the job market and how government measures and the Fed's actions are not working and why they are not working. Everyone wants to complain about unemployment, but no one wants to step up and offer a solution or accept responsibility to resolve the problem.

I personally don't care and I pay enough in taxes each year to pay cash for a house so I should perhaps care more. I love the people that complain about taxes and whine about the system yet they pay either no taxes or just a few thousand a year in taxes. Coporations should also pay taxes . . . This is not the point so not sure why you bring it up.

My original point (before you guys elected to quote small portions out of context) is simply that there are too many workers (in part because now both husband and wife are forced to enter the workforce) and there are too few jobs to support all of these workers in part due to technology replacing the need for human workers. Government incentives to expand the economy no longer trickle down (ala Reaganomics) as any incentives provided by government to expand the economy and hire workers are simply retained by businesses to enhance their PE ratios and those benefits now trickle up or horrizontally.

I agree it is the way it is and it will just get worse from here on out. I, however, am pretty much immune to it in my profession and in fact seem to make even more money when the economy sags . . .

I understand QE 1 and 2 just fine....Kensyian Econ.101. What you and the B.H.O. Admin failed to recognize is that everyone was not going to play along as they pumped the money out and simultaneously created an atmosphere hostile to business in general and small business in particular with their rhetoric about the "evil rich" and "fair share" b.s. as well as the spectre of Obamacare and all the unknown cost to business' once enacted. (Obamacare having never been about "health care" but an insidious vehicle to grant centralized government complete control over its citizenry's behavior) and all the costly new regulation coming out of the EPA at a clip so fast as to make one's head spin.

That you don't understand the inverse relationship between higher taxes, (in this case the threat of and uncertainty over) and business expansion is stunning and speaks volumes. Also speaking volumes is your statement " Coporations should also pay taxes"..LOL, I suppose you mean all except B.H.O.'s crony Jeffry Imelt and his G.E. huh?....fact is they all pay taxes in theory but NO corporation "pays" taxes in reality. They pass them on to their consumers in the price of their goods and services....The insidious imbedded taxes that amount on average to 23% imbedded in the cost of everything.

That the U.S. tax code as its basis taxes people and business for efforts to work, save, and invest rather than or in addition to their consumption is truly counterproductive and the biggest drag on all that goes on socially and economically....but that fact-based rant for another day

Your assertion that government incentives to expand business no longer work I find amusing in a nauseated sort of way....there hasn't been any incentive by government since the so-called Bush tax cut and that is due to expire on Jan. 1 2013. An incentive would be to rescind much of what the EPA has done recently and slash tax rates instead of raising taxes through the rate schedules, expiration of afore mentioned cut and Obamacare.

On the bright side at least you claim to no longer intend to vote for the author of two books that laid it all out as to who he was and what he intended. Lets hope you and enough like you can overcome the bottom feeders and committed commies who will turn out for him again.

[ttelise]

The government and Fed has made money available, but corporations are just using to increase PEs, executive salaries and return to shareholders.

As they should be. Why in the name of Zeuss' butthole would one expand their business knowing that on Jan. 1st if Obama is re-elected tax rates will increase not to mention the aggressive way he is using the EPA and other regulatories to stick the knife into small business as well as corporate America?

All that before even mentioning the hell that is due to unfold with all the anti-business regulation and hidden taxes of his healthscare trojan horse. This bad intentioned individual has been quite successful so far at furthering the destruction of the U.S. economy and as you point out about QE3 and the prospect of hyper-inflation the worst is yet to come if he is still residing at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. come 22 Jan 2013.

* Inflation is coming regardless as the only way the national debt can ever be paid down is to do it with cheaper dollars.

This shows a complete lack of understanding of operation twist or QE 1 or 2. Coroporate balance sheets and PE ratios were already as healthy as they had been in many years over the course of the last couple of years and during QE 1 & 2 and Operation Twist. In fact, PE ratios and corporate balance sheets were as healthy as I had ever seen last year when the market corrected in Q3 and Q4 of 2011.

The Fed and arguably the government attempted to pump more money into economy so business would expand and put people back to work, not so executives and stock holders could reap larger bonuses and better returns. The rest of what you say is just rhetoric. I am only identifying the problem with the job market and how government measures and the Fed's actions are not working and why they are not working. Everyone wants to complain about unemployment, but no one wants to step up and offer a solution or accept responsibility to resolve the problem.

I personally don't care and I pay enough in taxes each year to pay cash for a house so I should perhaps care more. I love the people that complain about taxes and whine about the system yet they pay either no taxes or just a few thousand a year in taxes. Coporations should also pay taxes . . . This is not the point so not sure why you bring it up.

My original point (before you guys elected to quote small portions out of context) is simply that there are too many workers (in part because now both husband and wife are forced to enter the workforce) and there are too few jobs to support all of these workers in part due to technology replacing the need for human workers. Government incentives to expand the economy no longer trickle down (ala Reaganomics) as any incentives provided by government to expand the economy and hire workers are simply retained by businesses to enhance their PE ratios and those benefits now trickle up or horrizontally.

I agree it is the way it is and it will just get worse from here on out. I, however, am pretty much immune to it in my profession and in fact seem to make even more money when the economy sags . . .

I understand QE 1 and 2 just fine....Kensyian Econ.101. What you and the B.H.O. Admin failed to recognize is that everyone was not going to play along as they pumped the money out and simultaneously created an atmosphere hostile to business in general and small business in particular with their rhetoric about the "evil rich" and "fair share" b.s. as well as the spectre of Obamacare and all the unknown cost to business' once enacted. (Obamacare having never been about "health care" but an insidious vehicle to grant centralized government complete control over its citizenry's behavior) and all the costly new regulation coming out of the EPA at a clip so fast as to make one's head spin.

That you don't understand the inverse relationship between higher taxes, (in this case the threat of and uncertainty over) and business expansion is stunning and speaks volumes. Also speaking volumes is your statement " Coporations should also pay taxes"..LOL, I suppose you mean all except B.H.O.'s crony Jeffry Imelt and his G.E. huh?....fact is they all pay taxes in theory but NO corporation "pays" taxes in reality. They pass them on to their consumers in the price of their goods and services....The insidious imbedded taxes that amount on average to 23% imbedded in the cost of everything.

That the U.S. tax code as its basis taxes people and business for efforts to work, save, and invest rather than or in addition to their consumption is truly counterproductive and the biggest drag on all that goes on socially and economically....but that fact-based rant for another day

Your assertion that government incentives to expand business no longer work I find amusing in a nauseated sort of way....there hasn't been any incentive by government since the so-called Bush tax cut and that is due to expire on Jan. 1 2013. An incentive would be to rescind much of what the EPA has done recently and slash tax rates instead of raising taxes through the rate schedules, expiration of afore mentioned cut and Obamacare.

On the bright side at least you claim to no longer intend to vote for the author of two books that laid it all out as to who he was and what he intended. Lets hope you and enough like you can overcome the bottom feeders and committed commies who will turn out for him again.

"Committed commies" and "evil rich" all in one post . . . Too much 1950s and McCarthyism for me. I just don't think reducing corporate taxes will increase jobs. They will just pass savings up or horizontally so perhaps increasing their taxes to pay for more public sector jobs would be better.

Your hard to follow, but small businesses are a thing of the past thanks to economies of scale and discount pricing of large corprations such as Walmart, HQ, Home Depot, Best Buy, Walgreens, large chain restaurants and etc. The little guys trying to run small mom and pop hardware stores, pharmacies, TV shops, stereo shops, and restaurants simply can no longer compete. Our economy is very different than it was in the 50s, 80s or even the 90s or early 2000s. Things that used to work to stimulate economy no longer work and we are heading toward elimination of the middle class at this rate.

[RaoulDuke]

I found this particularly interesting in today's news. While some might think the Republicans have no plan, it would seem there are some states that might think otherwise.

_______________________________________________________

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPPED IN EVERY STATE THAT ELECTED A REPUBLICAN GOV. IN 2010

I would really love to see some data on the actual pay and benefits of these wonderful jobs being created by the GOP. They are campaigning quite rigorously to do away with pesky things like the minimum wage, child labor laws, and their fight against 'Obamacare', (which was dreamt up by the GOP back in the 90's as a way to counter Hillary Clinton's attempt at universal healthcare, because they wanted to keep giving money to insurance companies,who are very influential lobbyists) because they do not want to have to provide benefits to their minimum wage employees. And their war on the unions since the 1980's have proven extremely effective in removing any chance of worker rights. Everything I have heard and read about job creation in GOP states indicates they are very heavy on very low paying jobs without benefits, which provide much higher profit margins to the megacorporations, who all seem to be making record profits right now after slashing their workforce and employee pay. Slaves had jobs, too, but there are other considerations which should be made.

Edited July 9, 2012 by RaoulDuke

[chuckd]

I found this particularly interesting in today's news. While some might think the Republicans have no plan, it would seem there are some states that might think otherwise.

_______________________________________________________

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPPED IN EVERY STATE THAT ELECTED A REPUBLICAN GOV. IN 2010

I would really love to see some data on the actual pay and benefits of these wonderful jobs being created by the GOP. They are campaigning quite rigorously to do away with pesky things like the minimum wage, child labor laws, and their fight against 'Obamacare', (which was dreamt up by the GOP back in the 90's as a way to counter Hillary Clinton's attempt at universal healthcare, because they wanted to keep giving money to insurance companies,who are very influential lobbyists) because they do not want to have to provide benefits to their minimum wage employees. And their war on the unions since the 1980's have proven extremely effective in removing any chance of worker rights. Everything I have heard and read about job creation in GOP states indicates they are very heavy on very low paying jobs without benefits, which provide much higher profit margins to the megacorporations, who all seem to be making record profits right now after slashing their workforce and employee pay. Slaves had jobs, too, but there are other considerations which should be made.

Several things:

1. If you want to dispute the link you will need to come up with something more substantial than what you just did.

2. Please show us which Republicans are campaigning against minimum wage and child labor laws.

3. I doubt seriously any Republican version of Obamacare would even remotely resemble the one the Democrats passed.

4. It might interest you to know that of the 17 states that are shown as having improved their unemployment picture, 11 of them are Right To Work states and an additional 2 are leaning that way.

Labor unions are not the answer to the problems...they are a large part of the problem.

Your argument has no legs.

[flying]

Labor unions are not the answer to the problems...they are a large part of the problem.

+1

[Sateev]

Labor unions are not the answer to the problems...they are a large part of the problem.

+1

The need for labor unions would not exist but for massive abuse by big business, now aided and abetted by the US Supreme Court in Citizens United. That labor unions morphed into corrupt ineffectual power players is beside the point. If/when they are gone, the abuses will amplify, until similar organizations rise to take their place, assuming the combined police and military power of the US Government is not used solely at the behest of business, and targeted at its own citizens.

As for the Constitution: it is wholly inadequate to deal with the contemporary social, information, and business environment, and needs to be updated. Abolish the IRS in its current form, and throw out the body of tax law, replacing it with something simple, fair, and comprehensible, as well as ironclad, without loopholes.

Or, watch the downward spiral accelerate.

[ttelise]

I found this particularly interesting in today's news. While some might think the Republicans have no plan, it would seem there are some states that might think otherwise.

_______________________________________________________

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DROPPED IN EVERY STATE THAT ELECTED A REPUBLICAN GOV. IN 2010

I would really love to see some data on the actual pay and benefits of these wonderful jobs being created by the GOP. They are campaigning quite rigorously to do away with pesky things like the minimum wage, child labor laws, and their fight against 'Obamacare', (which was dreamt up by the GOP back in the 90's as a way to counter Hillary Clinton's attempt at universal healthcare, because they wanted to keep giving money to insurance companies,who are very influential lobbyists) because they do not want to have to provide benefits to their minimum wage employees. And their war on the unions since the 1980's have proven extremely effective in removing any chance of worker rights. Everything I have heard and read about job creation in GOP states indicates they are very heavy on very low paying jobs without benefits, which provide much higher profit margins to the megacorporations, who all seem to be making record profits right now after slashing their workforce and employee pay. Slaves had jobs, too, but there are other considerations which should be made.

Several things:

1. If you want to dispute the link you will need to come up with something more substantial than what you just did.

2. Please show us which Republicans are campaigning against minimum wage and child labor laws.

3. I doubt seriously any Republican version of Obamacare would even remotely resemble the one the Democrats passed.

4. It might interest you to know that of the 17 states that are shown as having improved their unemployment picture, 11 of them are Right To Work states and an additional 2 are leaning that way.

Labor unions are not the answer to the problems...they are a large part of the problem.

Your argument has no legs.

In Florida, many unemployed fell of the list of eligibility in the last several months and are not reported. Also, below article notes many Floridians are simply giving up on job searches and not included in the numbers. There were 28,000 individuals dropped from labor force not included in the unemployment talley in April of 2012, the largest number since 1992.

The more disconcerting factor is that food stamp recipients are increasing at record rates and each month are still going higher and higher. Interesting how good stamp approvals continue to rise every month yet the Republican Governer is doing such a great job getting everyone back to work.

This all makes one question the true unemoyment number and underemployment is a huge problem. The jobs likely created in Florida are temporary tourism jobs that pay little or nothing.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-05-30/business/fl-food-stamps-20120530_1_food-stamps-food-program-unemployment-rate

[Ulysses G.]

2. Please show us which Republicans are campaigning against minimum wage and child labor laws.

Isn't "RaoulDuke" one of Hunter S. Thompson's aliases? He must have scored some really good stuff.

[flying]

The need for labor unions would not exist but for massive abuse by big business, now aided and abetted by the US Supreme Court in Citizens United. That labor unions morphed into corrupt ineffectual power players is beside the point.

Abolish the IRS in its current form, and throw out the body of tax law, replacing it with something simple, fair, and comprehensible, as well as ironclad, without loopholes.

I do believe at one time long ago Unions served a purpose but the days of sweat shops are gone & labor laws are so strict it is near impossible to fire someone unless you build a case...you will pay

But that aside I feel the unions have basically helped price the USA out of being competitive in the world market.

They are corrupt as you say & pay a tiny fraction out of what they take in. All the while organizers who have little more than a high school education get 80-90k a year USD!

I know because my brother has been one for over 30 years. My father was also the president of a union for over 20.

I saw first hand how it works.

I do not think workers need them in reality & then there is the give us more $$$ or we will suck our thumbs & picket your business?

Usually at a time when the business is treading water only. Of course the Union will take 2% of that raise & not just what they got you for a raise but that which even you had before they arrived.

How can the US be competitive with threats & anchors such as these?

Contracts of pay raises for years to come of unknown business certainty? How is that possible & how will it work in a free market?

Does a union ever write in a clause that if the business takes a hit they will drop their pay or union dues?

The unions helped kill everything they touched....All just IMO of course.

But when I see my brother shop at Walmart I would say....<deleted> union man whats up with this?

He would reply he wants his dollar to go as far as possible.

Yeah don't we all?

Edited July 9, 2012 by flying

[chuckd]

Labor unions are not the answer to the problems...they are a large part of the problem.

+1

The need for labor unions would not exist but for massive abuse by big business, now aided and abetted by the US Supreme Court in Citizens United. That labor unions morphed into corrupt ineffectual power players is beside the point. If/when they are gone, the abuses will amplify, until similar organizations rise to take their place, assuming the combined police and military power of the US Government is not used solely at the behest of business, and targeted at its own citizens.

As for the Constitution: it is wholly inadequate to deal with the contemporary social, information, and business environment, and needs to be updated. Abolish the IRS in its current form, and throw out the body of tax law, replacing it with something simple, fair, and comprehensible, as well as ironclad, without loopholes.

Or, watch the downward spiral accelerate.

If you read my post carefully, you will note I never claimed there was NEVER a need for labor unions. One humdred years ago, labor unions were started to protect the workers. With OHSA, EPA and hundreds of government programs to protect the workers today, the only protection that is needed is to protect the US from the greed of the union bosses. You say it is beside the point that labor unions have morphed into "corrupt ineffectual power players" when it is exactly the point. They have been corrupt power brokers for the past 50 years and it is time for them to relinquish power.

Your complaint about the Citizens United decision falls on deaf ears. All that has done is level the playing field. Labor unions have had unfettered access to funds to support their candidates, which are in nearly all cases from the Democratic Party. Prior to Citizens United, corporations had no such access. If it was good enough for the unions, why would it not be good enough for businesses as well.

The Constitution has served very well for the past 236 years. Why fix a wheel that isn't broken? If you think it should be changed there is a procedure within the Constitution for exactly that event. Write your amendment, get it approved by two thirds majority of both houses of Congress and then ratified by 38 of the states. Following is a handy DIY link for you:

http://www.archives....r/constitution/

Finally we find ourselves at your statement recommending abolishing the IRS. While I agree in principal with a fair, simple, one size fits all tax code and the need to greatly reduce IRS, that is not what is happening. Plans are afoot as we speak to hire an additional 16,000 IRS agents simply to enforce the 21 new taxes coming from Obamacare.

http://www.examiner.com/article/irs-to-hire-and-arm-agents-to-enforce-compliance-with-obamacare?cid=rss

By the way, the largest growth industry in the US today is city, state and federal employment, and those are the only jobs government can produce.

[koheesti]

The need for labor unions would not exist but for massive abuse by big business, now aided and abetted by the US Supreme Court in Citizens United. That labor unions morphed into corrupt ineffectual power players is beside the point.

Abolish the IRS in its current form, and throw out the body of tax law, replacing it with something simple, fair, and comprehensible, as well as ironclad, without loopholes.

I do believe at one time long ago Unions served a purpose but the days of sweat shops are gone & labor laws are so strict it is near impossible to fire someone unless you build a case...you will pay

But that aside I feel the unions have basically helped price the USA out of being competitive in the world market.

They are corrupt as you say & pay a tiny fraction out of what they take in. All the while organizers who have little more than a high school education get 80-90k a year USD!

I know because my brother has been one for over 30 years. My father was also the president of a union for over 20.

I saw first hand how it works.

I do not think workers need them in reality & then there is the give us more $$$ or we will suck our thumbs & picket your business?

Usually at a time when the business is treading water only. Of course the Union will take 2% of that raise & not just what they got you for a raise but that which even you had before they arrived.

How can the US be competitive with threats & anchors such as these?

Contracts of pay raises for years to come of unknown business certainty? How is that possible & how will it work in a free market?

Does a union ever write in a clause that if the business takes a hit they will drop their pay or union dues?

The unions helped kill everything they touched....All just IMO of course.

But when I see my brother shop at Walmart I would say....<deleted> union man whats up with this?

He would reply he wants his dollar to go as far as possible.

Yeah don't we all?

Fantastic post.

Unions were needed 80 years ago or so. But power corrupts and their legacy now is that they have played a major part in destroying the country.

[chops]

Notice Thailand does not have these ridiculous unemployment problems. That is because it is a FREE economy where people can run a business without harassment from city health inspectors, government regulators, and IRS agents.

The economy here is so fluid and adaptable a brand new building or restaurant can go up in a matter of days. How long would it take those things take to go up in the usa? Years?

america needs to learn a thing or two about economics and start deregulating it's economy or it's going to have 'jobless recoveries' for the next fifty centuries.

Edited July 9, 2012 by chops

[Ulysses G.]

The economy here is so fluid and adaptable a brand new building or restaurant can go up in a matter of days. How long would it take those things take to go up in the usa? Years?

You have a point, but Thailand is so "adaptable" that large numbers of the exact same business open in clusters and rents are so cheap that no one makes a decent profit, but many just limp along on almost nothing. The West does not want to emulate Thailand's business practices.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[flying]

The economy here is so fluid and adaptable a brand new building or restaurant can go up in a matter of days. How long would it take those things take to go up in the usa? Years?

You have a point, but Thailand is "adaptable" that large numbers of the exact same business open in clusters and rents are so cheap that no one makes a decent profit, but many just limp along on almost nothing. The West does not want to emulate Thailand's business practices.

I don't think the US needs to ...or should even try to emulate but....

I do also think that regulations & govt interference has stifled business in the US to such a degree that many will no longer even try due to the insurmountable red tape & hoops they need to jump through not to mention costs of compliance.

Even in my trade of building the licensing with its regulation & costs followed by the insane level of inspections that have no rhyme nor reason behind them makes one scratch their heads.

For instance..........A couple would like to build a home........Sounds good...stimulate the economy on many levels right?

Workers will be needed....materials will be bought from many places....materials will be manufactured....taxes will also be paid for permits & later property taxes will increase greatly because the property once blank has now been improved.

Ok lets get started.....

1st need a contractor because in many States you need to be licensed to work on any project that exceeds $xxxx

Hoops galore but I jumped them & am licensed pay all the fee's & taxes & million dollars liability insurance coverages etc.

Ok lets get a permit....The building departments now require a architects stamp on any plan...why?

Because it relieves them of any responsibility/liability. even though they are supposedly all structural engineers &

that is after all their job to inspect plans & stamp them safe/approved or not....

Ok get the architect....big $$$ because they base it on a % of total project costs...

Ok done now...........get the permit yes? I mean it should be super easy & fast now because the building department has no liability having passed it off to the architect.

By right they should now not even look at the plan because they cannot change it. Because if they do they render

the architects promise void & regain the responsibility/ assume liability for the plan they sought to sidestep.

Well that is how it should be but no........you are looking at 3-6 months in most States to get the permit to start.

It has to go through...Plans & surveys dept, Health department, Planning Department,Fire Department, Then finally back to Building department for them to stare at awhile longer to justify their govt job.

The customer is expected to sit idle & wait along with all the possible workers waiting to work.

Don't even ask about commercial builds or worse yet a restaurant with all its vents & grease traps etc.

Not that these things are hard to build mind you as they are simple. But it takes health & all the others even longer to decide

if yours are acceptable even though there are basic rules sizes etc based on volumes.

It is crazy because ultimately these permits & taxes in the end are also revenues for the State govt.

all the income from the workers etc are revenues for both State & Fed govt.

Yet you are stuck

It is crazy because it does not need to be this way. 20 years ago I would drop a plan at 8am & pick up the permit at lunch

Govt is just too dang big now & they are killing the private sector. They move like snails to protect their jobs that in reality

are 75% at least over done & not needed.

Edited July 10, 2012 by flying

[Ulysses G.]

You have a point, but Thailand is "adaptable" that large numbers of the exact same business open in clusters and rents are so cheap that no one makes a decent profit, but many just limp along on almost nothing. The West does not want to emulate Thailand's business practices.

I don't think the US needs to ...or should even try to emulate but....

I do also think that regulations & govt interference has stifled business in the US to such a degree that many will no longer even try due to the insurmountable red tape & hoops they need to jump through not to mention costs of compliance.

I agree with you, but IMO the US needs to get rid of a lot of the red tape, but not copy the Thailand model.

[koheesti]

You have a point, but Thailand is "adaptable" that large numbers of the exact same business open in clusters and rents are so cheap that no one makes a decent profit, but many just limp along on almost nothing. The West does not want to emulate Thailand's business practices.

I don't think the US needs to ...or should even try to emulate but....

I do also think that regulations & govt interference has stifled business in the US to such a degree that many will no longer even try due to the insurmountable red tape & hoops they need to jump through not to mention costs of compliance.

I agree with you, but IMO the US needs to get rid of a lot of the red tape, but not copy the Thailand model.

At least copy the bar hostess model. Done correctly, it could provide the revenue needed to wipe out the debt while adding hundreds of thousand of jobs.

Edited July 10, 2012 by koheesti

[Steely Dan]

The economy here is so fluid and adaptable a brand new building or restaurant can go up in a matter of days. How long would it take those things take to go up in the usa? Years?

You have a point, but Thailand is so "adaptable" that large numbers of the exact same business open in clusters and rents are so cheap that no one makes a decent profit, but many just limp along on almost nothing. The West does not want to emulate Thailand's business practices.

The Thai model results not only in clusters of the exact same business, but moreover they all sell a practically identical range of products. I do concede that Thailand does have low barriers to entry, which is a good thing, but this is spoiled by laziness and lack of original thinking. I have little doubt that cutting red tape would actually lead to more innovation and choice in the U.S as innovation is so deeply ingrained in U.S culture, if only it's given a chance.

[chuckd]

The economy here is so fluid and adaptable a brand new building or restaurant can go up in a matter of days. How long would it take those things take to go up in the usa? Years?

You have a point, but Thailand is so "adaptable" that large numbers of the exact same business open in clusters and rents are so cheap that no one makes a decent profit, but many just limp along on almost nothing. The West does not want to emulate Thailand's business practices.

The Thai model results not only in clusters of the exact same business, but moreover they all sell a practically identical range of products. I do concede that Thailand does have low barriers to entry, which is a good thing, but this is spoiled by laziness and lack of original thinking. I have little doubt that cutting red tape would actually lead to more innovation and choice in the U.S as innovation is so deeply ingrained in U.S culture, if only it's given a chance.

And now Obama is proposing raising taxes on anybody that makes over $250,000. Many small business owners file as individuals and the additional taxes Obama wants from them would/could seriously impact hiring.

Obama claims only 3% of private business would be impacted.

That 3% amounts to roughly 900,000 small businesses.

.http://www.breitbart...-Left-of-Pelosi

Edited July 10, 2012 by chuckd