Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I comment on the hostile laws, regulations, tax increases, mandates and rhetoric, coming from the president and his administration, to explain why business owners are sitting on their cash, and you come back with payroll numbers????
They ARE sitting on their money, because they are afraid of what Obama will do to them next.
Obama signs a bill, which no republican voted for, that gives special tax rebates to people buying corporate jets. He boasts that the purpose is "stimulating the economy". Then a few months later, he is pounding his fist on the podium, publicly demonizing people for buying corporate jets, and taking the very tax break that he himself signed into law.
Obama signs an extension of the Bush tax rates, boasting that "You can't raise taxes" with a poor economy. A few months later he is pounding his scrawny fist again, demanding congress pass new tax increases.
Every few months 0bama's EPA and HHS unveil new burdensome healthcare law or mandate, or new environmental laws and regulations, all of which increase their costs of doing business.
Is it any wonder all businesses are hoarding their profits, and refusing to expand or invest in their businesses? They have no clue what new **** storm 0bama will unleash on them next.
So that is your logical response to this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Now, logically explain these numbers (average growth in private sector payroll per month) to the best of your capacity:
2001: -192.7K
2002: -64.8K
2003: 10.5K
2004: 159.2K
2005: 192.7K
2006: 154.9K
2007: 67.7K
2008: -315.2K
2009: -415.3K
2010: 104.0K
2011: 174.3K
2012: 210.3K*
For 2012, of course, we've only four months to compute from, but so far, it is the best year in that regard, even with just 130K private sector jobs added in April. And while at it, please do tell which of these years would you say represented the kind of excellence in job growth you preach.
I comment on the hostile laws, regulations, tax increases, mandates and rhetoric, coming from the president and his administration, to explain why business owners are sitting on their cash, and you come back with payroll numbers????
They ARE sitting on their money, because they are afraid of what Obama will do to them next.
Obama signs a bill, which no republican voted for, that gives special tax rebates to people buying corporate jets. He boasts that the purpose is "stimulating the economy". Then a few months later, he is pounding his fist on the podium, publicly demonizing people for buying corporate jets, and taking the very tax break that he himself signed into law.
Obama signs an extension of the Bush tax rates, boasting that "You can't raise taxes" with a poor economy. A few months later he is pounding his scrawny fist again, demanding congress pass new tax increases.
Every few months 0bama's EPA and HHS unveil new burdensome healthcare law or mandate, or new environmental laws and regulations, all of which increase their costs of doing business.
Is it any wonder all businesses are hoarding their profits, and refusing to expand or invest in their businesses? They have no clue what new **** storm 0bama will unleash on them next.
So, your theory is that businesses "are sitting on their money, because they are afraid of what Obama will do to them next?" If that's true, it would have to be shown that businesses stopped investing when President Obama was elected. But that's not what we see. The below graph shows that investment dropped going into the recession -- the way it always drops going into recessions. In addition, it shows that investment started up again as the nation moved out of recession.
If you notice from this graph, investment always drops going into every recession.
My theory is that businesses invest when they have enough demand to justify hiring more employees and buy new equipment. It makes no sense to invest in plant and equipment when the plant and equipment is under-utilized.
The idea that a company that needs a new truck won't buy one because their afraid that Obama is President is laughable.
Newsflash[/color]: Obama didn't create the economic safety net. It's the government we already had responding to a severe economic downturn.
What are you talking about?? The $5 trillion in new Obama debt did not come from an "economic safety net".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
The economic downturn cut government revenue and required additional spending on Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Food Stamps and other safety-net programs. It would have happened even if McCain had won in Nov. 2008. In other words, Obama policies hasn't expanded government causing deficits. That would have happened anyway.
So, we spent an additional $1.4 trillion each year on increases in Medicare, food stamps, unemployment compensation etc...?
Sorry, but I don't buy it, that every time unemployment goes above 7% that deficit spending goes up a trillion dollars a year.... because we have never had a trillion dollar deficit, until the country club Marxist became president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
But if you are saying that Obama is a Marxist (which I do not, incidentally) and "Marxist control" of the country brought us to where we are, you are unwittingly praising "Marxist" policies. What I find ironic is that conservatives denounce Europe but are so willing to embrace the failed austerity economic policies that Europe has embraced. If conservatives were in control, they'd be slashing spending left and right and we'd be in the same economic upheaval as Europe.
Obama's philosophy and ideology melds perfectly with Marxism. Obama loves a large and all-powerful central governemnt, and he is always dividing and identifying people by their race, economic and social class, and calling for more confiscation of wealth. But at the same time, he loves living the good life that capitalism has to offer. Obama is a country club Marxist, like most modern day, liberal, democratic party politicians.
This is sophomoric:
"I find ironic is that conservatives denounce Europe but are so willing to embrace the failed austerity economic policies that Europe has embraced."
Living within your means is now considered a failed policy for government? Living outside your means, i.e. accumulating $5 trillion in debt in three years, is a failed policy, and it is what has brought Europe to its knees. And we are next if we don't stop..
The socialists in Europe, who refuse to stop spending money they don't have, is why Europeans are not accepting cutbacks in government spending. Reducing government spending is not failing in Europe. What is failing is the willpower of the people to get off the unsustainable, cradle-to-grave embrace, of the nanny state.
I was not responding to a comment that is off topic from my post. Payroll increases have nothing to do with refuting anything I have said. In fact, it reenforces what I've said. It's easier to retain a few current employees, and pay them a bit more, then it is to hire new ones, because you have no clue what new laws, regs, and mandates will do to increase your costs for each employee.
I was not responding to a comment that is off topic from my post. Payroll increases have nothing to do with refuting anything I have said. In fact, it reenforces what I've said. It's easier to retain a few current employees, and pay them a bit more, then it is to hire new ones, because you have no clue what new laws, regs, and mandates will do to increase your costs for each employee.
Respond to my post, when you find self capable of a logical debate. If you want to stick with your usual non-sense rhetoric, trust me, it doesn't take much to return the favor. You've seen that before, haven't you?
BTW, this topic is about payroll increase. It is okay to be a troll, IMO as you will be put in place anyway, but it shouldn't hurt to at least occasionally engage in "logical debate" if you actually used that phrase for an argument.
When you only have one Party working to get jobs growing, it should be expected to be a slow process. But 26 straight months of growth, bringing UE from 10.2% to 8.1%, is hard to sneeze at, at least convincingly.
I was not responding to a comment that is off topic from my post. Payroll increases have nothing to do with refuting anything I have said. In fact, it reenforces what I've said. It's easier to retain a few current employees, and pay them a bit more, then it is to hire new ones, because you have no clue what new laws, regs, and mandates will do to increase your costs for each employee.
Is your typical strategy? To post an unflattering picture of Obama along with some right wing drivel?
The notion that even with sustained tax cuts businesses are not hiring because of Obama is just silly. If they were hiring, you would say it it because of the tax cuts, not Obama. Since they have money and are not hiring, I would conclude from this ( and the entire Bush II presidency) that tax cuts for the "job creators" don't necessarily create jobs. I see almost no evidence of a positive effect of corporate wealth on hiring. Perhaps they can make more money investing in the market or oil or China. However, arithmetic is undeniable that cutting federal spending will cut federal, state, and federal contractor jobs.
Your logic is notably.....missing, but your agenda is clear.
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 05-04-2012 at 11:03 AM..
375,000 people a week file for unemployment.
Only 115,000 new jobs in a month.
So how does the BLS get the unemployment rate down again. Easy- just stop counting long term unemployed people as being available. A smaller pool of people means less people looking and less people unemployed. Problem fixed. Anyone want to wager what the % will be the Friday before election day?
375,000 people a week file for unemployment.
Only 115,000 new jobs in a month.
So how does the BLS get the unemployment rate down again. Easy- just stop counting long term unemployed people as being available. A smaller pool of people means less people looking and less people unemployed. Problem fixed. Anyone want to wager what the % will be the Friday before election day?
Here is a sample of Obama, praising tax breaks that he signed into law one month, and then demonizing people who took them.
Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus act, in February 2009. In September 2010, Obama signed H.R. 5927, the Small Business Lending Fund Act. Both pieces of legislation included tax breaks to help businesses buy their own planes.
Good news to the aviation community, let's hire new employees and expand our operations, the president is on our side.
"NBAA thanks President Obama for enacting this important tax provision for American businesses," said NBAA President and CEO Ed Bolen. "Now that the President has signed the measure into law, companies will be able to take advantage of the provision right away, giving them access the benefits of business aviation."
“I’ve said to some of the Republican leaders, you go talk to your constituents, the Republican constituents, and ask them are they willing to compromise their kids’ safety so that some corporate jet owner continues to get a tax break,” Obama said during the news conference
He later said, “if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, if we choose to keep a tax break for corporate jet owners, .... That means that Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden.”
Many Wichitans can’t help thinking, though, that it didn’t help one bit to have the President of the United States and many of his party’s congressional members demonize corporate jet owners and seek to make corporate jet ownership prohibitively expensive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
