Dow Drops More Than 500 Points

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Yeah. Not good. There is just not a lot of job creation going on, stimulus has run its course and, on top of that, the "quantitative easing" and stimulus has flooded the economy with money - markets can see that. Lots of people are predicting serious inflation over by the end of 2012 (8 - 12%).

But I thought we were giving tax breaks for rich..I mean "job creators" so they can create jobs?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

But I thought we were giving tax breaks for rich..I mean "job creators" so they can create jobs?

Would raising taxes on the evil rich make things better right now?

Either way something needs to be done to encourage firms to start hiring again. No one is going to go anywhere if companies keep hoarding cash. For better or worse it looks like Obama is going to loose reelection.

Yeah Obama is on the outside looking in unless the economy is in much better shape then now come 2012

Also i heard this yesterday. What if we made the corporate tax rate zero but offset it by making the tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividens equal to individual's income tax rate and maybe even raise the top tax rate a little on those disgusting rich people. US corporate taxes are the highest in the world (prob the most complicated too) and are equal to only 15% of the total the IRS collects. Im sure that would attract new businesses and maybe spur production a little bit too.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

But I thought we were giving tax breaks for rich..I mean "job creators" so they can create jobs?

Well, we certainly aren't getting hired by poor people are we?

The job creators will create jobs only if it fits their business model. Most Americans don't seem to understand this. There's this notion that if you're wealthy, it's your natural patriotic duty to give up that money in the form hiring someone.

The job of a corporation/business is to remain profitable for their shareholders. That's it. It isn't their job to provide employment. In fact, if somebody runs the numbers and finds that operations can still be successful while reducing labor costs, hiring will stop and the workforce might be trimmed. On the other hand, if it's determined that it would be more profitable to expand services/operations, then you'll see more hiring.

If the rich are fearful that the government is set to confiscate even more of their money, which is what's scheduled to happen at the end of 2012 when the Bush tax cuts expire, you'll see timid, temporary hiring at best.

Now, if government would just get the hell out of the way, stop threatening the risk-takers, entrepreneurs, ... the "job creators" ... by taking more of their money, and instead adopted the policy of allowing people to keep more of what they earn and let them be as wildly successful as they can, then that's an economic environment we'd all want to be in.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Well, we certainly aren't getting hired by poor people are we?

The job creators will create jobs only if it fits their business model. Most Americans don't seem to understand this. There's this notion that if you're wealthy, it's your natural patriotic duty to give up that money in the form hiring someone.

The job of a corporation/business is to remain profitable for their shareholders. That's it. It isn't their job to provide employment. In fact, if somebody runs the numbers and finds that operations can still be successful while reducing labor costs, hiring will stop and the workforce might be trimmed. On the other hand, if it's determined that it would be more profitable to expand services/operations, then you'll see more hiring.

If the rich are fearful that the government is set to confiscate even more of their money, which is what's scheduled to happen at the end of 2012 when the Bush tax cuts expire, you'll see timid, temporary hiring at best.

Now, if government would just get the hell out of the way, stop threatening the risk-takers, entrepreneurs, ... the "job creators" ... by taking more of their money, and instead adopted the policy of allowing people to keep more of what they earn and let them be as wildly successful as they can, then that's an economic environment we'd all want to be in.

Great post. I would add the increased regulatory burden and the effects Obamacare will have when its fully implemented are major factors in keeping businesses on the sidelines until after 2012. If Obama is re-elected, it will extend the malaise another 4 years.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Great post. I would add the increased regulatory burden and the effects Obamacare will have when its fully implemented are major factors in keeping businesses on the sidelines until after 2012. If Obama is re-elected, it will extend the malaise another 4 years.

Interesting that you site regulation. Like, what industries have been "over regulated" under this administration? And what tangible data do we have to suggest that it's keeping employers from hiring.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Interesting that you site regulation. Like, what industries have been "overrugulated" under this administration? And what tangible data do we have to suggest that it's keping employers from hiring.

LOL...You noticed that too? I don't seem to remember corporate america and small business orgs fighting the law.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Interesting that you site regulation. Like, what industries have been "over regulated" under this administration? And what tangible data do we have to suggest that it's keeping employers from hiring.

Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery - Investors.com

Just one guys opinion but this seems to be the way small business owners and large corporations feel. There is SO MUCH uncertainity coming out of Washington no body wants to do anything but, like dirtbag said, hoard cash. If youre a ceo and your number one job is to protect shareholders its the fiscially responsible thing to do.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery - Investors.com

Just one guys opinion but this seems to be the way small business owners and large corporations feel. There is SO MUCH uncertainity coming out of Washington no body wants to do anything but, like dirtbag said, hoard cash. If youre a ceo and your number one job is to protect shareholders its the fiscially responsible thing to do.

This is not just one man's opinion, it's the opinion of a life long Republican hack' who doesn't want you to know that the Obama stimulus is the only thing that has been keeping his company afloat and Wall Street from gutting it during these rough times.


Keep it real homie.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Interesting that you site regulation. Like, what industries have been "over regulated" under this administration? And what tangible data do we have to suggest that it's keeping employers from hiring.

Obama was certainly blessed to have you working on his campaign. At first glance your arguments sound very solid and are often found in "credible" (read left-leaning, Obama-friendly) media sources. However upon further investigation....the truth will set you free.

Obama’s Wall Street Journal Regulation Op-Ed: Less than Meets the Eye

From the link:
Rather than require agencies to identify harmful regulations during the next 120 days, or even to eliminate unwarranted rules, the order merely requires agencies to submit a “preliminary plan” for reviewing regulations sometime in the future, with the goal of making their regulatory program either less burdensome or “more effective.” And despite promises of transparency elsewhere in the order, the results of any regulatory reviews conducted are required to be released online only “whenever possible.”
Moreover, the initiative is hardly “government-wide,” excluding independent agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Factual info on increased regulatory burden under Obama




Among the most costly of the FY 2010 crop are:

• Fuel economy and emission standards for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles imposed jointly by the EPA and NHTSA. Annual cost: $10.8 billion (for model years 2012 to 2016). For automakers to recover these increased outlays, NHTSA estimates the standards will lead to increases in average new vehicle prices ranging from $457 per vehicle in FY 2012 to $985 per vehicle in FY 2016.
• Mandated quotas for renewable fuels. Annual cost: $7.8 billion (for 15 years). Utilizing farmland to grow corn and other crops used in renewable fuels will displace food crops, leading food costs to increase by $10 per person per year—or $40 for a family of four, according to the EPA.
• Efficiency standards for residential water heaters, heating equipment, and pool heaters. Annual cost: $1.3 billion. The appliance upgrades necessary to comply with the new standards will raise the price of a typical gas storage water heater by $120.
• Limits on “effluent” discharges from construction sites imposed by the EPA. Annual cost: $810.8 million. The cost of the requirements will force the closure of 147 construction firms and the loss of 7,257 jobs, according to the EPA. Homebuyers also will bear some of the costs, with an increase in mortgage costs of about $1,953.

More:

Morning Bell: “The White House Does Not Create Jobs”

Summary from the link:
- Obama’s Energy RegulationsDue to the President's drilling moratorium 1/3 of the oil rigs in the Gulf have left since 2009 at a loss of approx. 411K barrels per day. 1/3 supply cut from the Gulf raises gas prices. Loss of thousands of jobs.
- Obama’s EPA Regulations: The EPA forces businesses to “waste tens or hundreds of billions of dollars per year on environmental upgrades of dubious value, meaning that money isn’t available to invest in business expansions or create jobs. Higher costs also cut down on business investment—a factory that makes economic sense at a cost of $10 million may not when EPA regulations have jacked the cost up to $30 million.
- Obamacare: Obamacare makes labor costs uncertain. Every day brings more bad news as the details of the legislation emerge. Before Obamacare was enacted, private-sector job creation was averaging 67,600 jobs per month. After the law was signed, this number plummeted to 6,400 jobs per month.
Obamacare has also resulted in insurance companies exiting markets, thereby reducing consumer choice. Joshua Raskin, an analyst at Barclays Capital, has noted that it “is harder and harder for smaller plans to compete in a more regulated environment.”[14] Shortly after Obamacare was enacted, Principal Financial Group, which provided insurance to over 800,000 people, decided to stop selling health insurance. The company’s decision reflected its assessment of its ability to compete in the environment created by the law, which Principal believes harms relatively small insurers that lack “significant concentration in any one market.

Gas Mileage Standards - See this bipartisan letter to the President from Members of Congress in Michigan

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...%207-21-11.pdf


A Freeze On New Regulations Would Help Boost Job Growth - Investors.com

I think I've made my point.

It's really quite simple, if you're running a business and your costs to create jobs are greater than the economic benefit, you won't create jobs. Obama has created a climate where the benefits don't outweigh the costs....you're wrong Obama is a great socialist.