Budget Deal Negotiated

[jonny5]

Having another shutdown would be completely unacceptable. It's their job to make a functional budget and keep the government running. Billions of dollars were lost in the last shutdown, billions that were stripped right out of the pockets of hardworking Americans.

Congress can play politics all it likes, but when it screws people over so blatantly, that's going too far. A deal is better than no deal. Not making a deal should be permanently off the table.

If the choice is between magically losing money by not spending money during a shutdown, and paying more taxes to cover more spending in this deal, I choose shutdown.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Is that a serious argument? The last minimum was increase was in 2009 and raised the MW by 70 cents an hour. Many states ready had a higher wage. Do you really think that poltry increase would be enough to reverse an 8% drop in GDP?

It's not an argument. It's a series of questions. I'm not the one arguing that increasing the minimum wage is beneficial to the health of the economy. FYI, the minimum wage increased over 40% between 2007 and 2009. 40% is not a paltry increase and the recession came after two consecutive years of increases.

 

[MTAtech]

It's not an argument. It's a series of questions. I'm not the one arguing that increasing the minimum wage is beneficial to the health of the economy. FYI, the minimum wage increased over 40% between 2007 and 2009. 40% is not a paltry increase and the recession came after two consecutive years of increases.

One reason the minimum wage was established was to fight deflation during the Depression. Deflation caused a spiraling down of wages and prices and is toxic to an economy.

Raising the MW puts money in the pockets of the lowest wage earners. Those people spend their earnings at a higher proportion than higher income earners. Thus, in a demand-lacking economy, it is stimulative as it acts to close the gap between potential GDP and actual GDP.

The MW was $5.85 in 2007 and in 2009 it was raised to $7.25. That's not a 40% increase. It's a 23% increase. If you are arguing that the increases have been too generous, in 1996 dollars, the MW was $7.21 in 1968. In the same 1996 dollars, the current MW is $4.87.

 

[Kushinator]

Maybe in government but not in the capitalist model...

Now you are just making stuff up.

 

[FederalRepublic]

One reason the minimum wage was established was to fight deflation during the Depression. Deflation caused a spiraling down of wages and prices and is toxic to an economy.

There are ways to combat that without price controls, but ok. I'll buy that we need to have options during emergencies. Why did the policy continue after the economy recovered? Price controls are also toxic to an economy...

Raising the MW puts money in the pockets of the lowest wage earners. Those people spend their earnings at a higher proportion than higher income earners. Thus, in a demand-lacking economy, it is stimulative as it acts to close the gap between potential GDP and actual GDP.

Again, as a short-term solution, I'll buy it, even though there are better ways for the government to hand out money.

The MW was $5.85 in 2007 and in 2009 it was raised to $7.25. That's not a 40% increase. It's a 23% increase. If you are arguing that the increases have been too generous, in 1996 dollars, the MW was $7.21 in 1968. In the same 1996 dollars, the current MW is $4.87.

Check your records. The minimum wage was $5.15 in 2007. It was raised to $5.85 on 7/27/2007. And no, I'm not arguing that the increases have been too generous. I'm arguing that they aren't necessary at all.

 

[FederalRepublic]

One reason the minimum wage was established was to fight deflation during the Depression. Deflation caused a spiraling down of wages and prices and is toxic to an economy.

Raising the MW puts money in the pockets of the lowest wage earners. Those people spend their earnings at a higher proportion than higher income earners. Thus, in a demand-lacking economy, it is stimulative as it acts to close the gap between potential GDP and actual GDP.

The MW was $5.85 in 2007 and in 2009 it was raised to $7.25. That's not a 40% increase. It's a 23% increase. If you are arguing that the increases have been too generous, in 1996 dollars, the MW was $7.21 in 1968. In the same 1996 dollars, the current MW is $4.87.

By the way, are you arguing that we're in a deflationary period right now?

 

[jaeger19]

No, progressives believe the government should financially support every adult like they're babies and claim they're not socialists because they're technically not promoting the socialist model via definition while they get their cake..

It's not republicans fault - I'll call it a sabotage of capitalism by both parties - but more so by those who hate capitalism and want to see it fail...

I'm not even trying to defend republicans either...

There are probably plenty of RINO's out there who believe we can just dictate economy by printing money as progressives... Who believe it's governments role to dictate and regulate the economy/capitalism...

Yeah.. not sure even what you are talking about.

 

[jaeger19]

There's no disconnect. Did the last increase in the minimum wage spur a massive recovery? Did it spur wage growth across the board? Job growth, at least? Increased demand for goods & services?

actually,. it is a disconnect... the idea that the economy is poor.. but unemployment is because people don't want to work..

As far as minimum wage increase? did it spur a massive recovery? Nope, one it wasn't a massive increase in any case, and two that's not the purpose of a minimum wage. Did it increase demand for goods and services.. most definitely. What it did to is help prevent us from slipping into a depression and staying there.

Now a question.. did that increase spur a massive depression? did it cause massive layoffs?

 

[jaeger19]

Why do you think they would? Do you really think that the employer has the only say in the market price for labor? Care to tell me why I can't even get an illegal immigrant to work for minimum wage doing my lawn?

Well, lets calculate whats going on in the economy and what pressure it applies to wages. Lets see.. are we going through a recession and very poor recovery? Yes... so does that put pressure on wages to go up or go down? Go down

Is unemployment low? Nope its high.. with lots of people competing for a lower number of jobs.. does that push wages up, or down? Down

Do we have enforcement of our border and our employers to insure the legality of our workers? No.. we have not only a porous border but we have almost no enforcement on employers so we have a flood of illegal immigrants into this country... does that push wages up or down? Down.

That's three very good reasons why if we removed the floor on wages, they would naturally lower.

Does the employer have the only say on wages? No.. because we have wage laws in this country. and at times, because of demand, workers have more say.

Care to tell me why I can't even get an illegal immigrant to work for minimum wage doing my lawn?

Maybe because they think you are an A hole. Where I live there is no trouble getting illegal immigrants to work for someone who treats them with respect

No. They don't. Just because they don't have any rules doesn't mean they have free markets.

Sure.. that makes sense.. because if they have lots of rules, that means they are free markets.. come on man..

Negative, Ghost Rider.

Positive padiwan

Yes, he is. The truck driver in America is in significantly higher demand, otherwise we wouldn't have 20 million illegal immigrants living and working here.

And what do you think 20 million illegal immigrants do to wages here? Make them go up? Nope.. it would have negative forces on wages. Now why wouldn't wages drop heavily? . Ooops what helps wages from going down past a certain point and creates a floor... that's right minimum wage.

Minimum wage is completely arbitrary. Whoever sets it might use a formula to come up with what they think it should be, but the formula will still be arbitrary and subject to change at a whim.

That's true.. but its not an "arbitrary setting prices"... because it doesn't dictate all prices.. just sets a floor or minimum. But you are right on the arbitrary point.

We don't have a third world country, and the minimum wage is not what prevents us from becoming one. It's fair rules and the fair enforcement of said rules. Price controls are never fair for all parties involved (if your business model is designed to eliminate low-skilled labor, then you are at a distinct advantage over a competitor who wants to hire a bunch of his neighbors, not to mention the competitor's neighbors), neither is government stimulus spending (not everyone has a brother-in-law in congress). Someone decides arbitrarily who the winners and losers are. That's what happens in third world countries, and it's happening more all the time here. Why anyone thinks that's a good thing is a mystery to me.

Minimum wage is what prevents us from becoming one.. its one of those rules (fair or not is debatable but certainly its one of those rules_)... as is rules against child labor, and rules against monopolies, and rules against slander and libel etc.

Minimum wage is not a price control in that it control the price for wages.. it only controls the bottom floor for wages.

You'll have to explain the " business model designed to eliminate low skilled labor then you are at a distinct advantage bit" cause that doesn't make a lot of sense... just too many variables in it.

I can think of examples were low skilled labor gave you and advantage over your competitor who was trying to eliminate labor.

And government stimulus spending can very beneficial to the economy as a whole.. its simply what money is spent on (now "fair". that's a different story)... Tell me.. would your argue that money spent updating roads that make them faster, and more efficient, is something that is bad for our economy?

But you are right.. we are doing a lot of deciding who the winners and losers are... the folks with the money are the ones that are the winners now.

 

[FederalRepublic]

actually,. it is a disconnect... the idea that the economy is poor.. but unemployment is because people don't want to work..

Nope. I have no doubt there are some people who've done everything they can to get a job and simply can't do it. Of the long-term unemployed, maybe 10% of them. I'd guess less than that. The economy isn't that poor...

As far as minimum wage increase? did it spur a massive recovery? Nope, one it wasn't a massive increase in any case, and two that's not the purpose of a minimum wage. Did it increase demand for goods and services.. most definitely. What it did to is help prevent us from slipping into a depression and staying there.

Now a question.. did that increase spur a massive depression? did it cause massive layoffs?

I think if you'll review the timeline, you'll find that the recession started (December 2007) several months after raising the minimum wage (July 2007). After yet another increase in the minimum wage (July 2008), the recession took turn for the worse (September 2008). I'm not going to argue that raising the minimum wage caused the recession, but it wouldn't be any sillier than saying it prevented a depression.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Well, lets calculate whats going on in the economy and what pressure it applies to wages. Lets see.. are we going through a recession and very poor recovery? Yes... so does that put pressure on wages to go up or go down? Go down

Except that the recession is officially over, so why should there be negative pressure on wages?

Is unemployment low? Nope its high.. with lots of people competing for a lower number of jobs.. does that push wages up, or down? Down

Yet there are job openings that go unfilled, some because they don't pay enough, others because there aren't enough qualified applicants. What gives?

Do we have enforcement of our border and our employers to insure the legality of our workers? No.. we have not only a porous border but we have almost no enforcement on employers so we have a flood of illegal immigrants into this country... does that push wages up or down? Down.

Can't argue with that one, but you're a long way from depressing entry-level pay to $1/hr.

That's three very good reasons why if we removed the floor on wages, they would naturally lower.

That's two very good reasons, one of which is not relevant to the present, and one reason that may or may not be relevant (depending on the reasons for the high unemployment).

Does the employer have the only say on wages? No.. because we have wage laws in this country. and at times, because of demand, workers have more say.

Workers in the US always have a say. That's the correct answer to the question, and none of them will work for $1/hr unless you are giving them something else of value as well.

Maybe because they think you are an A hole. Where I live there is no trouble getting illegal immigrants to work for someone who treats them with respect

That's pretty funny. Something tells me you've never gone down to the Home Depot parking lot and tried to get Pablo to come and clean your gutters for minimum wage.

Sure.. that makes sense.. because if they have lots of rules, that means they are free markets.. come on man..

Some things just can't be explained to some people, but I'll try again...You can't have freedom without some rules. The market's no different.

Positive padiwan

The demand of the market has nothing to do with the artificial floor (other than the possible decrease in demand for labor). Cute comeback though.

And what do you think 20 million illegal immigrants do to wages here? Make them go up? Nope.. it would have negative forces on wages. Now why wouldn't wages drop heavily? . Ooops what helps wages from going down past a certain point and creates a floor... that's right minimum wage.

So the minimum wage is the driving force behind our economy. It's what sets us apart from Mexico, right? Maybe the Mexicans should just raise their minimum wage to what ours is now and all their productive workers would come home. I wonder why they haven't thought of that before now.

That's true.. but its not an "arbitrary setting prices"... because it doesn't dictate all prices.. just sets a floor or minimum. But you are right on the arbitrary point.

Minimum wage is what prevents us from becoming one.. its one of those rules (fair or not is debatable but certainly its one of those rules_)... as is rules against child labor, and rules against monopolies, and rules against slander and libel etc.

Minimum wage is not a price control in that it control the price for wages.. it only controls the bottom floor for wages.

There are plenty people in third world countries that have minimum wages that would disagree you. Mexico is one of those countries.

You'll have to explain the " business model designed to eliminate low skilled labor then you are at a distinct advantage bit" cause that doesn't make a lot of sense... just too many variables in it.
I can think of examples were low skilled labor gave you and advantage over your competitor who was trying to eliminate labor.

Read up on what Chicken of the Sea did with their cannery in American Samoa when the minimum wage was raised in 2007.

And government stimulus spending can very beneficial to the economy as a whole.. its simply what money is spent on (now "fair". that's a different story)... Tell me.. would your argue that money spent updating roads that make them faster, and more efficient, is something that is bad for our economy?

That depends on where the road goes, doesn't it? Building an interstate highway system? That is not bad for the economy. Building a new road so Nancy Pelosi's husband can shave 20 minutes off his commute? Yeah that's bad for the economy.

But you are right.. we are doing a lot of deciding who the winners and losers are... the folks with the money are the ones that are the winners now.

I don't disagree with that.

 

[jaeger19]

Nope. I have no doubt there are some people who've done everything they can to get a job and simply can't do it. Of the long-term unemployed, maybe 10% of them. I'd guess less than that. The economy isn't that poor...

Sure.. that's why when the economy was booming, those folks were working.. and now.. they all just got lazy.. and decided to make drastically less... :roll:

I think if you'll review the timeline, you'll find that the recession started (December 2007) several months after raising the minimum wage (July 2007). After yet another increase in the minimum wage (July 2008), the recession took turn for the worse (September 2008). I'm not going to argue that raising the minimum wage caused the recession, but it wouldn't be any sillier than saying it prevented a depression.

Well, I didn't say that the raising of the minimum wage prevented a depression.. I stated the fact that we HAD a minimum wage that was that high enough helped prevent a depression.. which is not silly at all when you consider we have seen what happened when we didn't have a minimum wage (after we had become industrialized)... the minimum wage prevents a panic in wages and that prevents a severe decline in buying power. ,

Except that the recession is officially over, so why should there be negative pressure on wages?

Because unemployment is still high and we still have competition that has cheaper wages and we don't have any enforcement of immigration laws, and thus have more illegal workers pushing down wages.

Yet there are job openings that go unfilled, some because they don't pay enough, others because there aren't enough qualified applicants. What gives?

A variety of factors... for one. many of the lower paying jobs are seasonal, and therefore its a penalty for someone to work those jobs and lose their unemployment at a higher rate, and then be laid off at a lower rate later.
In addition, there are job openings that go unfilled because there is a regional shortage of those type of low paying workers..(one argument for just how long we should continue to extend unemployment. Its not a matter of not wanting to work.. but its a matter of workers not wanting to uproot their families and move to where the jobs are and will be. Some areas, like the one I live in, will probably never see those jobs come back since it was such a boom)

And as far as unqualified workers? Some of that is due to failures in our education system, and in that fact that our economy is changing, and what people were trained for in 2005 is different than is what is needed in 2013.

But overall, the number of jobs available is much less than those seeking work.

Can't argue with that one, but you're a long way from depressing entry-level pay to $1/hr.

not at all... The minimum wage worker in the US makes approximately 13 times more than doing the same job in mexico (at least the last time I checked). And that's just mexico.. not the rest of our competition

That's two very good reasons, one of which is not relevant to the present, and one reason that may or may not be relevant (depending on the reasons for the high unemployment).

All three are relevant.. whether you choose to believe basic economics is another matter.

Workers in the US always have a say. That's the correct answer to the question, and none of them will work for $1/hr unless you are giving them something else of value as well.

Poop.. that's just the hubris of living in a country that has had a minimum wage for decades talking. Americans are no different from other folks.. if its work for a dollar or starve or watch their kids go hungry then they will work.

That's pretty funny. Something tells me you've never gone down to the Home Depot parking lot and tried to get Pablo to come and clean your gutters for minimum wage.

Probably because I own a farm and have no trouble getting folks to work for me. Especially since I speak Spanish and treat my workers with respect.

Some things just can't be explained to some people, but I'll try again...You can't have freedom without some rules. The market's no different.

I agree.. but saying that other countries such as third world countries don't have free markets is not correct.

The demand of the market has nothing to do with the artificial floor (other than the possible decrease in demand for labor). Cute comeback though

Wrong.. the reason that demand for wages starts at 7.25 or more is because of the artificial floor. Without that artificial floor, wages would start at some other amount. Most likely much much lower.

So the minimum wage is the driving force behind our economy. It's what sets us apart from Mexico, right? Maybe the Mexicans should just raise their minimum wage to what ours is now and all their productive workers would come home. I wonder why they haven't thought of that before now.

THE driving force behind our economy? I don't believe I ever, ever stated that. Is it a safety net, a artificial floor that helps bolster our wages and prevents wage panics? Yes.

As far as Mexico.. if Mexico raised its wages to at least near our wages, then yes.. their productive workers would likely come home. In addition, the drug wars and violence would also decrease. Quite frankly, if you are a younger person.. you are going to make more in the drug trade then most jobs in mexico. In fact. most illegals plan on going back home to mexico... that's why there is a lot of money that passes through the banks on its way home to mexico from the united states. I do believe that at one time, money being sent from the US to mexico represented a lot of GDP for mexico

There are plenty people in third world countries that have minimum wages that would disagree you. Mexico is one of those countries.

Perhaps, but they would be wrong. A minimum wage is not the same as a price control.

Read up on what Chicken of the Sea did with their cannery in American Samoa when the minimum wage was raised in 2007.

I did.. it would be a perfect of example of what I stated... Chicken of the sea had an advantage with lower skilled workers versus a more capital intensive business. When the minimum wage was essentially DOUBLED from 2007 to 2009.. Chicken of the Sea moved to Lyons Georgia where they employed 200 folks in a more automated facility.

That depends on where the road goes, doesn't it? Building an interstate highway system? That is not bad for the economy. Building a new road so Nancy Pelosi's husband can shave 20 minutes off his commute? Yeah that's bad for the economy.

Absolutely it depends on how that money is spent.. however, you now have admitted that government spending can be beneficial for the economy.. Glad we now agree.

 

[MTAtech]

By the way, are you arguing that we're in a deflationary period right now?

There is no overall deflation but we are in a very low inflation environment. Wages may well be in a deflationary period. Many have gotten wage freezes or cuts, which supports policies that raise wages.

 

[MTAtech]

...
Absolutely it depends on how that money is spent.. however, you now have admitted that government spending can be beneficial for the economy.. Glad we now agree.

Reminds me of what read yesterday:

Back in 1936 the economist John Maynard Keynes argued that increased government spending was needed to restore full employment. But then, as now, there was strong political resistance to any such proposal. So Keynes whimsically suggested an alternative: have the government bury bottles full of cash in disused coal mines, and let the private sector spend its own money to dig the cash back up. It would be better, he agreed, to have the government build roads, ports and other useful things — but even perfectly useless spending would give the economy a much-needed boost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/opinion/krugman-bits-and-barbarism.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss#h[]

 

[Fenton]

Reminds me of what read yesterday:

The Keynesian solution is such a simple minded premise and it owes its current relative popularity to a political party that refuses to acknowledge that its own policies have caused this extended economic stagnation.

Its a economic solution in a vacuum thats perpetuated by people who lack the humility to admit that the ideology they've dedicated a lifetime too has caused a extended amount of misery.

Keynes never advocated for a massive structural debt and his methods assumed a ISOLATED economy with a strong manufacturing base.

That doesn't exist any more, so we what ? Acrue more debt , borrow mors from China so we can buy more Chinese junk ?

 

[FederalRepublic]

There is no overall deflation but we are in a very low inflation environment. Wages may well be in a deflationary period. Many have gotten wage freezes or cuts, which supports policies that raise wages.

In other words, minimum wage hikes are a good policy choice to protect against both inflation and deflation?

 

[MTAtech]

In other words, minimum wage hikes are a good policy choice to protect against both inflation and deflation?

I don't see how you came to that conclusion based upon what I wrote.

 

[jaeger19]

The Keynesian solution is such a simple minded premise and it owes its current relative popularity to a political party that refuses to acknowledge that its own policies have caused this extended economic stagnation.

Its a economic solution in a vacuum thats perpetuated by people who lack the humility to admit that the ideology they've dedicated a lifetime too has caused a extended amount of misery.

Keynes never advocated for a massive structural debt and his methods assumed a ISOLATED economy with a strong manufacturing base.

That doesn't exist any more, so we what ? Acrue more debt , borrow mors from China so we can buy more Chinese junk ?

Please detail exactly what policies have caused this extended economic stagnation.

 

[FederalRepublic]

I don't see how you came to that conclusion based upon what I wrote.

I wouldn't support that conclusion at all. I just wondered if you would. I don't agree that inflation is particularly mild at the moment, but let's just assume that it is (i.e. food and energy costs are not part of the equation). Is your cure to the problem of low/stagnant wages to simply mandate higher ones?

 

[FederalRepublic]

Please detail exactly what policies have caused this extended economic stagnation.

Using tax dollars to support favored (unproductive) ventures at the expense of less-favored (productive) ventures...

 

[Fenton]

Please detail exactly what policies have caused this extended economic stagnation.

ObamaCare.....

Obama's and the Democrats priority since 2008 was to pass healthcare.

What they passed was essentially a huge tax increase on working families and busineses.

Free market economies are nothing without confidence, and what that law did was ensure and mandate large eventual cost increases on Corporations and middleclass americans.

Cost increases that could not be imediately quantified ( we have to pass it to know whats in it ). Corporations and small bussineses are not partisan.

They simply want to have a reasonable expectation of cost increases from year to year. Hell, they hire people to make those assesments.

If they are no reasonable quantifiable future cost expectations what do you think they're going to do ? Theyv'e been doing it for 5 years now.

They freeze hiring, they hold on to their capital instead of making new investments.

Corporations AND banks have been sitting on Trillions in capital.

Wait till Obamcare kicks in 100% and your average middle class family has to fork out a few hundred more a month in premiums.

You think the economies bad now ?

On top of that Obama's now trying to push through climate mandates through the EPA that will cause a increase in energy cost.

It would seem he's intent on absolutely crippling the US economy, and the worlds economy right on with it. Wait till QE ends and Bond yields jump up.

 

[jaeger19]

Using tax dollars to support favored (unproductive) ventures at the expense of less-favored (productive) ventures...

\

Please give me specifics.. its an interesting subject

 

[jaeger19]

ObamaCare.....

Obama's and the Democrats priority since 2008 was to pass healthcare.

What they passed was essentially a huge tax increase on working families and busineses.

Free market economies are nothing without confidence, and what that law did was ensure and mandate large eventual cost increases on Corporations and middleclass americans.

Cost increases that could not be imediately quantified ( we have to pass it to know whats in it ). Corporations and small bussineses are not partisan.

They simply want to have a reasonable expectation of cost increases from year to year. Hell, they hire people to make those assesments.

If they are no reasonable quantifiable future cost expectations what do you think they're going to do ? Theyv'e been doing it for 5 years now.

They freeze hiring, they hold on to their capital instead of making new investments.

Corporations AND banks have been sitting on Trillions in capital.

Wait till Obamcare kicks in 100% and your average middle class family has to fork out a few hundred more a month in premiums.

You think the economies bad now ?

On top of that Obama's now trying to push through climate mandates through the EPA that will cause a increase in energy cost.

It would seem he's intent on absolutely crippling the US economy, and the worlds economy right on with it. Wait till QE ends and Bond yields jump up.

Fenton.. please detail the exact increase taxes from Obamacare that have been in effect in the last three years.. and how they have influenced the economy.

And Fenton.. corporations DO NOT walk away from profit now.. because of future loss of profit in 5 years. The take advantage of profit now....

 

[Fenton]

Fenton.. please detail the exact increase taxes
from Obamacare that have been in effect in the last three years.. and how they have influenced the economy.

And Fenton.. corporations DO NOT walk away from profit now.. because of future loss of profit in 5 years. The take advantage of profit now....

Your'e right, they havn't walked away from profits, theyv'e asked their existing workers to do more.

Hence their increased productivity levels.

As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as a jobless recovery.

As far as the increased taxes from ObamaCare over the last three years ? You kind of missed my point.

Again, its the stagnating effect of a new law that ensures and mandates higher expenditures that cannot be readily quantified for individuals and Corporations.

Sure taxes are going up now, taxes on dividends and taxes on Capital Gains, but Bussineses have been waiting for the implimentation of this law to see how it would affect their bottom line.

Why do you think Obama put off the mandate on Busineses another year ?

ObamaCare is a disastrous piece of legislation.

Its a time bomb set to go off in a economy that depends on confidence. An economy that after 5 years is still on life support because of ObamaCare.

Its an axiomatic truth that Corporations are sitting on Trillions. Why ?

And no its not because of a " lack of demand" The lack of Demand is just a consequence.

 

[jaeger19]

Your'e right, they havn't walked away from profits, theyv'e asked their existing workers to do more.

Hence their increased productivity levels.

As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as a jobless recovery.

As far as the increased taxes from ObamaCare over the last three years ? You kind of missed my point.

Again, its the stagnating effect of a new law that ensures and mandates higher expenditures that cannot be readily quantified for individuals and Corporations.

Sure taxes are going up now, taxes on dividends and taxes on Capital Gains, but Bussineses have been waiting for the implimentation of this law to see how it would affect their bottom line.

Why do you think Obama put off the mandate on Busineses another year ?

ObamaCare is a disastrous piece of legislation.

Its a time bomb set to go off in a economy that depends on confidence. An economy that after 5 years is still on life support because of ObamaCare.

Its an axiomatic truth that Corporations are sitting on Trillions. Why ?

And no its not because of a " lack of demand" The lack of Demand is just a consequence.

So Fenton.. do you realize that you just pointed out a real reason that the economy has stagnated that has nothing to do with "Obama"s policies"...

Employers have found ways to increase profit through productivity rather than through increasing jobs. Please tell me how that business decision.. is the result of Obama's policies.

Doesn't it make sense for employers to increase productivity of their workers rather than simply hire more bodies ?

And as far as taxes.. I didn't miss your point... I blew it out of the water. You claimed it was policies of this administration/democrats.... but as pointed out none of that has actually happened.

Your narrative that its obamacare is fiction..

First and foremost the reason for the poor recovery is lackluster growth in demand. You say its not.. but of course it is demand fenton... Consumers have to be buying things for companies to decide they need to expand.

Any company that expands simply because "they are confident" is being foolish. You expand to take advantage of market demands or to take market share from someone else. That's economics 101.