Given that jobs and the economy are the number one priority for the year as set out in the State of the Union, I thought it was appropriate to start a discussion about it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

2/10/2010 12:56:17 AM

I dont want to see it. We can't afford it. How are we going to pay for it?

Ive always thought it was best if you are broke and jobless to go out and rack up as much debt as you can, bc surely you would be better off and get some neat stuff you wanted.

I guess a year ago is too long to remember the 800B we spent, with great results.

5k for hiring a new employee? This only plays to voters, bc business owners arent nearly as dumb and know this will have no impact at all. Its like throwing in an air freshener when you buy your car. Its not like people are running out to buy a car to get the free air freshener.

2/10/2010 8:34:24 AM

Well then, I would ask you what proposals you have in mind to create more jobs and in return you will say that we need to cut regulations on employers to which I will go ahead and save us the time and ask which regulations on employers/businesses do you want to see cut?

Oh, and Republicans looked like damned hypocrites as it pertains to the last stimulus and I hope they get nailed for it.

[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 9:06 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2010 9:05:31 AM

Quote :

"What do you want to see in it?"

I don't. Government interference in the housing market incentivized the poor decision making that got us where we are right now. Any jobs bill that comes out of the US Congress will be laden with pet projects to ensure the employment of the politically favored while neglecting the necessary structural changes which are attempting to occur in the US economy.

I'm two months out from finishing my current job and despite having looked for 5 months I've only got a couple of leads which may or may not turn out productive. If anything, I'd like to see a massive restructuring / simplification of the tax code and a regulatory moratorium so that businesses aren't faced with massive uncertainty while making strategic decisions which affect their ability to hire employees.


Additionally, the Federal Government cannot simply "create" jobs / productivity / value. If it could we'd have no need for private enterprise, the government could simply create jobs at a "living wage" for everyone.

2/10/2010 9:30:48 AM

Damn. Does anyone want to dispute the points made in the video posted?

2/10/2010 9:47:53 AM

Quote :

"Oh, and Republicans looked like damned hypocrites as it pertains to the last stimulus and I hope they get nailed for it. "

Didnt seem to harm the dems who voted for the war.

I agree with cash. Simplifing the tax code will help. There is a ton of uncertainty with people and businesses now and a lot of people are scared. Increasing taxes will only make businesses less likely to hire, esp in this downturn. As for my suggestion, lets give that limited govt idea another try.

2/10/2010 9:48:46 AM

Quote :

"As for my suggestion, lets give that limited govt idea another try."

And what exactly do you mean by this? How would you "limit government"? Just writing "limited govt" on your hand simply isn't good enough.

^^No, they don't want to dispute it because they know the GOP got called the fuck out.

2/10/2010 9:54:48 AM

Quote :

"Does anyone want to dispute the points made in the video posted?"

I'm simply not interested in investing the time to listen to Rachel Maddow.


^ Both parties need to be called out for being full of shit. Simply slapping the name "Jobs" on a bill or "Health Care Reform" or "Stimulus" does not absolve you of the responsibility to demonstrate through metrics the effect of your actions. Instead, we've got a President who claims to have saved jobs with precisely 0 ability to demonstrate this. We have a stimulus bill whose distribution has been almost completely along party lines and we've got a convoluted Federal Reserve system which congress refuses to audit.

Did the GOP get called out? Sure, they're morons like everyone else. Say what the fuck you will about Republicans in congress, the states in the most financial trouble and the ones with the highest unemployment rates are generally Democratic dominated states. I don't see contrite statists in California accepting that they fucked up . . . they just demand the rest of the nation subsidize their inefficiency and incompetence. So the US Congress can go fuck themselves if they think I'm simply being obstructionist for asking them to keep their incompetent and often corrupt hands off the rest of the economy.


/rant

2/10/2010 10:12:20 AM

Ok, ONE example is unemployement. In this new "jobs bill" they are again extending unemployement benefits. These are paid by businesses and states are raising the taxes on these businesses to cover the difference. Now you may say they are simply sending money to help out the states, which is fine.. but where does THAT money come from?

Again, they keep on changing the rules. Times are tough now. Business is down. So in good times when your tax burdens increase you simply raise prices to cover the difference. However, market pressures are now to lower prices as people arent spending. So you cannot raise prices you have to lower overhead, which usually means employees.

google it. Some states are taxing employers 35% more.

And forcing health care/taxes on businesses. Another major example. Raising limits on SS tax, another. These are hurting businesses NOW, simply bc they are required to fund these programs that have been mismanaged by the Federal govt.

And Im not even mentioning direct interference into the market. LIke buying a car company, or as cash mentioned with the housing bubble.


^Good post cash.

[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2010 10:12:41 AM

As far as the economy goes...Bush screwed the pooch..but Obama is stomping his head in.

2/10/2010 10:19:09 AM

The asinine thing is assuming all blame / credit can be placed on either president.

Quote :

"Ok, ONE example is unemployement. In this new "jobs bill" they are again extending unemployement benefits. These are paid by businesses and states are raising the taxes on these businesses to cover the difference."

This is an excellent point. How the fuck is it more efficient to increase the operating costs of a business and then tell them to hire more people and then wrap it in the cloak of a "jobs bill?"


On top of that, 75 of the nation's top 100 companies contract with the Federal Government. You don't think that congressmen aren't going to take care of Gov't contractors in their home district first? Fuck yes they are, what benefit does this do to the private sector . . . the part of the economy that actually generates value? Not shit.

2/10/2010 10:21:41 AM

Quote :

"I'm simply not interested in investing the time to listen to Rachel Maddow."

That's definitely your loss. If you could counter her points that would be one thing but it's entirely another to stick your fingers in your ears because of whatever bias you may have.

So if you don't like the idea of extending unemployment benefits then are you suggesting they just end them to alleviate the burden on companies? Because then you'd simply end up with not only jobless people but hungry ones as well.

And surely you must see that no matter what the president proposes and how many republicans he brings in on this that there will be those in Congress who are content to fold their arms and say no for none other than to see the president fail.

2/10/2010 10:34:22 AM

There is a pretty solid chance that I'll be unemployed in about two months and no I do not think that increasing unemployment benefits by increasing the tax on employers is a good idea. Yes it is painful, yes it will be painful for me, but it prevents long term recovery.


Now, if you DO think that they should, approximately 85% of the $700B stimulus is unspent. Why not start there?

What about people who oppose the "Jobs Bill" because embedded in it is a renewal of the Patriot Act?

Quote :

"And surely you must see that no matter what the president proposes and how many republicans he brings in on this that there will be those in Congress who are content to fold their arms and say no for none other than to see the president fail."

What is that any more ignoble than passing a bill whose effects are questionable at best simply so you can say you voted for the "jobs bill?"

2/10/2010 10:38:37 AM

i couldnt fast forward past the whiny whaa whaa whaa republicans did a dumb thing so its ok if democrats do dumb things so i stopped watching.

2/10/2010 10:40:54 AM

Quote :

"it is a renewal of the Patriot Act"

2/10/2010 10:44:38 AM

Quote :

" embedded in it is a renewal of the Patriot Act"

lol, for serious?

2/10/2010 10:46:16 AM

That's diabolical.

2/10/2010 10:52:33 AM

Here. Ima break down some stimulation for a sec:

Step 1. Get rip of cap gains tax on small and medium businesses for like 5 years.
Step 2. Toss out the retardo cap and trade bill that got passed and replace it with a flat carbon tax that increases as time goes on. Use the proceeds to..
Step 3. Put in place massive tax credits to Businesses and Individuals who install wind/solar/geothermal systems in their businesses/homes. At the same time ensure all power suppliers in the US allow everyone on the grid to put power onto the grid for $credits on their power bill. Tax Credits would cover generation systems and installation (probably not storage though).
Step 4. Build more nukes. Everywhere. If there is a place, put a nuke there. If you can put a pebble bed reactor in my backyard lets do that shit.
Step 5. Do some quick fix insurance stuff (allow competition across state lines, individual tax deductions, national insurance database for easy shopping and comparison, encourage HSAs, etc...)


There are probably some other things you could do here and there but those are some things that could get done quick. Lower energy costs benefit everyone, everywhere in the us. By creating tax credits for individual/business installation of clean energy systems you create demand for those systems which creates private industry jobs. It also creates real investment into more development of those technologies, which will lower prices/increase efficiency at which points the credits can safely expire. The really fucking stupid carbon credit scams where you pay money to specific governement approved "green energy" businesses is really awful and wont ever work.

That plus some quick insurance fixes will drop the price of energy and insurance accross the board, increasing purchase power for individuals and businesses.

[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 11:01 AM. Reason : a]

2/10/2010 11:00:50 AM

Quote :

" (a) USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005. Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109177; 50 U.S.C. 1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 1861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is amended by striking ‘‘February 28, 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’. (b) INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004. Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108458; 118 Stat. 3742; 50 U.S.C. 1801 note) is amended by striking ‘‘February 28, 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’. "

lmao. thanks for protecting our civil liberties guys.

2/10/2010 11:29:43 AM

Does anyone know who introduced the patriot act renewal? I'll bet it was actually the democrats in an effort to A.) Get republicans onboard and B.) Hide their support for it from their base.

2/10/2010 11:40:22 AM

^^^I agree with everything you said except for the carbon tax. Any regulation on carbon dioxide emissions is just stupid and hurts your wallet and the economy.

^yeah probably.

Quote :

"So if you don't like the idea of extending unemployment benefits then are you suggesting they just end them to alleviate the burden on companies? Because then you'd simply end up with not only jobless people but hungry ones as well. "

I'm strongely against extending unemployment benefits b/c I know someone that's been on it for over 1 1/2 yrs and gotten two extensions and in the meantime hasn't even ATTEMPTED to look for a job. Wow, talk about some oversight there.

2/10/2010 1:12:08 PM

If anyone doesn't want to watch the full 10 minute video, you can start at 2:50 through 7:50 to get the main point.

2/10/2010 1:39:31 PM

i went to 2:50 and it was still the same whining so i skipped around between there and 7:50 and every time it was more whining.

[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 1:46 PM. Reason : d]

[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 1:47 PM. Reason : gg]

2/10/2010 1:46:43 PM

I thought the 2009 stimulus bill was supposed to be a Jobs Bill. was I mistaken?

2/10/2010 9:25:25 PM

Terrible, terrible idea.

...and next time, why don't you embed a video of Keith Olbermann too, for good measure...

2/10/2010 9:36:53 PM

We can't even begin to think of jobs until we let the creative destruction happen.

We didn't let that happen.

Going forward, growth and innovation is now stunted as we protect zombie banks and don't force a cram down of 2 decades worth of credit growth that FAR exceeded productivity growth.

There is a reason the economic engine in this country isn't moving, and we can't will it to move by raining Helicopter Bens dollars. The destruction has to occur with all the ensuing job losses and disappearing of companies that comes with it. And after the medicine has been taken the uncertainty of when/if the credit writedowns are coming is gone and we can go back to lending to people who can afford it and invest in companies with sound business practices.

Not a moment sooner.

2/10/2010 10:03:06 PM

Quote :

"Say what the fuck you will about Republicans in congress, the states in the most financial trouble and the ones with the highest unemployment rates are generally Democratic dominated states."

Oddly enough, Republican states tend to be more net debtors to the Fed than Dem states. So, it's certainly easier to have a balanced budget when you get more back from the other states than you pay out.

2/10/2010 10:05:22 PM

^^

yep, gotta cull the herd a little. can't get off and running again until our feet are back on the ground.

2/10/2010 10:19:57 PM

Quote :

"...and next time, why don't you embed a video of Keith Olbermann too, for good measure..."

Oh come on now, I give you more credit than to simply compare the two. Why not throw in Chris Matthews or Ed Shultz in there to complete the trifecta.

2/10/2010 10:53:25 PM

Quote :

"Keith Olbermann"

He's a little too far out there for my tastes much of the time, but Rachel is bother newer at it and more facts based. Her 5 minutes of "whining" are 5 minutes of specific quotes, she takes time to explain concepts, and I can take her much more seriously than I do Olbermann or Hannity or anyone closer to the edges.

[Edited on February 10, 2010 at 10:57 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2010 10:57:20 PM

If you still want a different source, how about Talking Points Memo?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/dems-to-celebrate-stimulus-anniversary-by-slamming-gop.php?ref=fpblg

Quote :

"Next week when President Obama marks the one-year anniversary of signing the stimulus bill into law, Democrats will showcase the Republicans who were against the Recovery Act funds, before they were for them being funneled to their home states. TPMDC has learned the party will mount an orchestrated effort from the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to go after Republicans who voted against the$787 billion economic stimulus plan but take credit for its spending back home. Obama signed the measure Feb. 17, 2009 with votes from just three Republicans (one of those GOPers, Sen. Arlen Specter, became a Democrat) but members of the opposing party have campaigned on stimulus projects. A Democratic source told me the party will force both incumbents up for reelection in the fall and Republican challengers to say on the record if they support the stimulus plan, which the White House in tandem will showcase as having created jobs. "Look for us to be all over this story," the source said. The Democrats collected new ammunition thanks to a damning report in Tuesday's editions of The Washington Times. The Times' Jim McElhatton found that Sen. Kit Bond and more than a dozen other Republicans lambasted the stimulus but "privately sent letters to just one of the federal government's many agencies seeking stimulus money for home-state pork projects." McElhatton reported: The letters to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, expose the gulf between lawmakers' public criticism of the overall stimulus package and their private lobbying for projects close to home. The DCCC is using the Times report as a jumping off point for inducting a total of 71 GOPers into a "Republican Hypocrisy Hall of Fame," just one effort among several expected in the coming week from Democrats eager to expose their rivals. The "Hall of Fame" push will be sent to local media in the 71 districts of Republicans who "have been caught trying to celebrate the benefits of projects they opposed in President Obama's recovery bill, the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill, and the Omnibus Public Land Management Act," according to a template of the release obtained by TPMDC."

They will be focusing on House GOP, but there are a couple of bad senators they are targeting.

Quote :

"While most senators up for reelection have not been as bold, the DSCC will go after Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Senate candidate Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE). They each have touted projects that were funded with stimulus cash."

2/10/2010 11:33:52 PM

I'm not really sure how much traction they will get with this. It isn't exactly stupid, post signing of the bill, to ignore your constituents. As a Federal taxpayer, if I'm going to be forced to pay for the boondoggle, you best believe I want to get the most for it I can.

Just more time wasting and politics being played by DC. Eventually, this shit has to stop.

2/11/2010 7:24:56 AM

Quote :

"Democrats will showcase the Republicans who were against the Recovery Act funds, before they were for them being funneled to their home states."

Well, this is sorta rational. It is reasonable to be against spending the money, but since it is going to be spent anyway, might as well spend it in a useful way.

2/11/2010 9:08:26 AM

"I'm not really sure how much traction they will get with this."

Voting against legislation and then taking credit for it saying it was important and necessary that the effects of the legislation happen as you hand out the big fake check... yeah I think that kind of hypocrisy for voting no on something you claim to support because its the partisan thing to do will have some traction.

2/11/2010 10:09:40 AM

again, like the war vote?

2/11/2010 10:14:12 AM

As with pretty much all legislation, this piece is not about how many jobs will be created. The government can't create jobs, it can only take (or create) money and pay people to do work. If that was productive, we could all have government jobs and we'd be the most prosperous nation on earth. Really, it's about how many jobs this bill will destroy. Every time the government spends money it doesn't have, it sets us up for even more pain later on. Just like someone might enjoy maxing out every credit card they have, the time will come when the money has to be paid back at a high rate of interest.

2/11/2010 12:00:51 PM

if you want more of something you subsidize it

if you want less you DONT

why do we pay people to stay unemployed? a good motivator for people to get out and make it happen with free enterprize is endin HANDOUTS. its that simple but unemployed poor people stay in the getto and vote democrat so of course they dont want to stop their voting base

2/11/2010 1:17:50 PM

^ the Führer himself couldn't have said it anybetter.

2/11/2010 1:58:48 PM

Quote :

"if you want more of something you subsidize it "

So if you want more indecisive employers to hire, you give them tax credits?

2/11/2010 3:30:26 PM

Are employers indecisive, or are they having a hard time meeting their bottom line? I don't think this is just an issue of employers not feeling like hiring. I think the recession has hit the employers just as hard as everyone else, and they're trying to squeeze as much productivity out of their current workers as they can. In a recession like this, the first thing to go is training. Employers are not looking to take on new employees right now, they'd rather keep the ones they have, and employees aren't trying to take a chance with a new job if their current job is stable and has benefits. There's low job turnover as a result. I don't think tax credits are going to change anything in that respect.

We need to reduce the tax burden on businesses if we want our country to be competitive in the future, no doubt about that, but tax credits are not the way to do that. We first need to address the spending/budget deficit problem, and then we can look at some lower taxes across the board. I understand that no one wants to bring fiscal discipline into the picture, but if we don't, there's going to be hell to pay. We need massive cuts in government, and we need to increase taxes. We need to default on our debt and convince our creditors that we will pay the money back over time, and not inflate. These are not easy decisions, but by not making them now, we only put them off for a few years.

2/11/2010 3:45:01 PM

supplanter, its really pretty simple. In order for a business to hire someone they need to have the money to do so. Employing someone costs a lot more to the business than most employees think. But right now business is down, so revenues are down...meaning businesses have LESS money so they are cutting overhead. Raising taxes on them will only cause them to cut more jobs. Allowing them to keep some of their money at least is a step in the right direction, however, most businesses wont fall for the 5k tax credit for hiring someone. They are smarter than that, and will start to hire when demand for their products/services return.

^good post. I think in our ADD culture many are looking for a magic bullet or ONE simple solution. In reality, there just isnt one. Tax cuts overall would help people and the economy, but we just cant afford to do them with this record spending.

[Edited on February 11, 2010 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2010 3:47:42 PM

Quote :

"We first need to address the spending/budget deficit problem, and then we can look at some lower taxes across the board."

This is a paradoxical statement. You see how much the congresspeople bitch when THEIR programs are cut.

It would take deficit reduction as the entirety of a president's platform for meaningful changes to happen there. The hole we're in is so deep though, that with modest cuts, we're still talking about 15-20 years AFTER a balanced budget before there is no debt. Try convincing people to swallow policies designed to last that long...

2/11/2010 3:51:37 PM

Quote :

"Try convincing people to swallow policies designed to last that long..."

Failure to do so will result in said policies being crammed down their throats, not at a time of their choosing, but when the market demands it.

2/11/2010 3:53:25 PM

Oh, I understand completely. That's why I say these are hard decisions. No one has the courage to do it, and there's very little political support for it. I think someone needs to level with the public and get us back on a sustainable path, because if not, we're not going to have an immigration problem, we'll have an emigration problem, because the younger generation of workers is not going to stay here when all of the opportunities are overseas.

2/11/2010 3:55:43 PM

I thought the 2009 stimulus bill was supposed to be a Jobs Bill. was I mistaken?

2/11/2010 4:01:07 PM

I was just poking fun at the selectively applied philosophy of "if you want more of something you subsidize it" with subsidizing unemployment to create more unemployment, but subsidizing hiring does not create more hiring.

2/11/2010 4:06:52 PM

Does anyone else not see the paradox in this statement

Quote :

"The government can't create jobs, it can only take (or create) money and pay people to do work."

2/11/2010 5:22:26 PM

why do we let the goverment take our money to give jobs to people who cant get them trough competition? this is what i do everyday. you have to be ready to hustle every day and let the spirit rise in you.

NO MORE TAXES and that money wil go to what? JOBS!

2/12/2010 1:34:26 PM

^^ That is not a job, it is a public whim. Andrew Jackson could fire every last public sector employee tomorrow. Meanwhile, private sector workers owe their jobs to consumers, which are (usually) less fickle than voters. True, this is not currently the situation, as politicians nowadays answer to public sector unions instead of voters, but maybe that will change back in the future somehow.

2/12/2010 5:42:23 PM

You didn't demonstrate how a government can't create a job.

2/12/2010 5:50:26 PM