I've long had a problem with the Bush tax cuts...I prefer that they didn't get extended but understand why they were. And while I'm not too keen on the FICA tax being cut still, I can live with it as long as the cut is temporary. At some point taxes will have to be raised, but in today's economy I can live with temporary tax reductions as long as they expire at the end of 2012, as appropriate.
IOW, we're going to do the same things that didn't work when we tried them before.
What many don't seem to understand is that consumer confidence is extremely low and the business community has no confidence in this Administration and will not be doing any hiring unless extremely necessary. The costs are too high and the benefits too short term. Businesses don't print money and don't make short term decisions. All the benefits offered to hire people are short term but hiring any employee is a great expense and it seems eventually Obama is going to raise taxes on business and then there is Obamacare.
Liberals, you really screwed up on this one, The choice of Obama was a disaster
Businesses hire because they need help -- not because they're feeling confident. Putting cash in consumers pockets to spend causes businesses to need help.
The cost of inaction is much greater than the cost of action.
Obama Plan Would Boost GDP, Economists Say - Bloomberg
So if the option is to simply cut services then wait and see, we're in for a long cold recession, but if we act it could improve things across the board.
As the President stated last week, the main criteria for selection of jobs projects will be how they will improve the economy.
But first, they have to spend it. The lack of confidence in the business sector stems from the gigantic lack of consumer confidence that this regime has created.
With the drilling ban, the attack on coal companies, coal fired power plants, the tobacco industry and the nationalization of the auto industry that resulted in the forced shut down of car dealerships all over the country, plus the damage that cash for clunkers did to the used care market, it leave everyone in the working class wondering, "whose jobs get killed next?".
LOL
The drilling moratorium (now OVER for some months) was a response to the biggest offshore oil disaster in our history. Coal companies were not being attacked, they were being regulated for spewing pollutants that absolutely cause over 10,000 deaths per year. Now that's out the window, too. The tobacco industry is literally a cancer on the world. Obama saved two thirds of our domestic auto industry and their associated dealerships. If he hadn't, thousands more dealerships would have vanished. Cash for clunkers was a huge success.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln....
So, how many of the 33 rigs that were shut down are back to work?
The moratorium was lifted. Do you know what that means?
Ok, so, how many permits have been issued since it was, "lifted"?
If permits aren't being issued, then the ban wasn't, "lifted", was it?
Do you not have Google where you live? Why don't you ever check your facts before you blurt out whatever crosses your mind?
"BOEMRE Has Approved 51 New Shallow Water And 19 New Deep Water Drilling Permits Since June. According to the latest data available from the Department of Energy's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, 51 permits for new shallow-water wells and 19 permits for new deep-water wells have been approved since June 8, 2010."
Do they have actual links to your source, where you live? Go ahead, post the link for us. This is going to be good! :rofl
I think you forgot to include the link.opcorn2:
Ok, so, how many permits have been issued since it was, "lifted"?
If permits aren't being issued, then the ban wasn't, "lifted", was it?
It's a good article, but it doesn't exude such gloom and doom as you'd like readers to believe.
There are mixed reactions to the President's jobs proposal. Some employers say the plan could work for them, others are 50/50 and still others say it won't help them one bit. But what you gleen from the article is this: At least employers are thinking of ways the plan could work for them. At least employers recognize that the plan would work best in certain industries, i.e., construction, pharmaceuticals, health care, education. At least employers are saying the see some merit to the President's jobs proposal. It may not put 8,000,000 people back to work but it it can take even 1/4 of the unemployed or under-employed off the federal dole and increase GDP, I can get behind that.
Businesses hire because they need help -- not because they're feeling confident. Putting cash in consumers pockets to spend causes businesses to need help.
that's the theory, certainly. two immediate problems spring to mind.
1. you have to get that money from somewhere, and the only place to get it is from the private market in the first place. taking money out of someone's pocket to put back in their pocket (taking a cut off the top for the bureaucracy and inefficiency that come with government) doesn't actually mean that they have more money.
2. in highly leveraged economies (such as - gasp - ours), the multiplier is actually negative, because people tend to use "windfalls" (such as the government giving tax credits) to pay down debt.
SO. If only we weren't already heavily in debt (both publicly and privately), and if only the government were in possession of a Magic Money Tree which could produce money without increasing the monetary supply, then yes, this plan would work. And beggars could ride.
we have been discussing this in another thread and I just want to get my stance on this clear - I would hope that Congress would pass the entire Obama plan as he described it last night. The nation needs it. However, I fear that the GOP will only extract from it the planks that Obama included as part of the compromise with them top get their support and will dump everything else that Obama and the Dems want. They will then claim that they did give the President some of what he requested and thus did indeed compromise. And Obama will be outmaneuvered yet again by the Republicans.
1. you have to get that money from somewhere, and the only place to get it is from the private market in the first place. taking money out of someone's pocket to put back in their pocket (taking a cut off the top for the bureaucracy and inefficiency that come with government) doesn't actually mean that they have more money.
in highly leveraged economies (such as - gasp - ours), the multiplier is actually negative, because people tend to use "windfalls" (such as the government giving tax credits) to pay down debt.
I do however agree that tax cuts, in and of themselves, are a piss poor way to stimulate aggregate demand when society is indebted. Which is why thousands of public works projects are > tax cuts at this time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?