Awol Bush

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by jwd
Here's a link to what Greenspan thinks about jobs. I thought it was interesting.

You know, I am tempted to tell you to put that link and all the nonsense about job creation in a very dark place where your head already is. But I won't, because that would be rude.

Fact: I live in what is considered probably the fourth or fifth most affluent region of the country (I ain't rich though).

Fact: At about 2:30p.m. on Sunday Feb. 1 a black middle-aged black and his two young sons were rummaging through the dumpster behind the local Walgreens picking up damaged packages of Oreos and other assorted food items.

Hunch: This man is either unemployed or makes very little money.

Fact: Not even two miles away are some of the region's most expensive homes, and a little beyond that is some of the most expensive waterfront real estate in the nation.

Hunch: This man and his two young boys don't live in one of those expensive homes.

Hunch: The folks who live in said homes probably have no idea, or don't care, about this man's plight, and everyone else living in poverty. They probably even blame the country's ills on the poor people who are "keeping our taxes high" with by drawing from welfare and so forth.

Conclusion: If this kind of thing is happening in the shadows of so much affluence, I have to believe it probably is a lot worse in other parts of the country.

The point: The job indicators you cite are just plain wrong. They don't even count the people who have given up on finding new jobs. For all I know, the man mentioned above is one of them. But most importantly, as long as a father of two children has to rummage through a dumpster to feed his family, we are doing something terribly wrong as a society.

Suggestion: Save your job-creation smugness and face reality. We've got problems.

[dissention]

A few little tidbits of info:

-3 Months in Iraq = $14 billion

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._iraq_war_cost

-According to retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a 26-year veteran:

"Pay records don't mean anything except that you're in or you're out. It doesn't necessarily reflect what duty you've actually performed because pay records simply record your unit of assignment and then all of your pay and benefits per pay period."

-A look at the continuing employment problems:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0210-11.htm

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
You know, I am tempted to tell you to put that link and all the nonsense about job creation in a very dark place where your head already is. But I won't, because that would be rude.

Let me apologize in advance. That was rude and uncalled for. I am ashamed of myself.

[strandinthewind]

I agree with you Carne (oops I edit here to say about you other post - not about being rude ), but my question is what do we do about it? How do we create more jobs? I can think of no other way than to get Amercians spending money again, which they are doing now and the economy is recovering. With that spending comes increased manufacturing, etc., which leads not only to new hiring, it also leads to more taxes for the govt. coffers.

I do not see any other way to achieve this goal than to cut taxes. I guess the govt. could have put the money back in the economy a la the Great Depression (TVA, etc.) but that would also have lead to deficits

Note: No matter how much money, jobs, etc., are created, I think that sadly same inequity will exist between the have's and the have nots. It certainly was there in the booming 90's. I think in the end there is no solution to that problem because humans sadly are not built to care. Take Russia as an example. There, in the beginning, people were all about everyone is working for the state and is equal, etc. Yet, in the end, people figured out that kind of existense was not feasible and there were still have's and have nots - some lived better than others even though pretty much everyone was working for the state, etc. People want nice things and for the most part do not care who does not have them as long as they do. I hate that That is why I think anyone who makes a lot of money has a duty to try and help others. This charity is the only way I can think of to begin closing that gap and even then, it is a drop in the bucket, etc.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, money must come from somewhere. it does not just appear. Interestingly, Kennedy cut taxes and the D's went hooray Finally, what else could the govt. do to help the economy recover? Raise taxes? If you raise taxes, people have less to spend. When people spend less, the govt. gets less income So, again, cutting taxes was the correct thing to do and no one has provided an economically feasible alternative - if you have one - spill it Would it be better if, like Kerry suggests, the tax cuts went only to people making around less than $100,000 a year? Would that be more palateable because the arbitrarily determined "rich" get nothing?

Again, you are talking to someone who believes in a flat income tax.

Sorry, I'm sober, therefore I'm quite skeptical about tax cuts.

When making the argument for tax cuts, the right usually points to Ronald Reagan. Reagan claimed that the budget could be balanced in two or three years by lowering the tax rates on the wealthy. However, what they fail to mention is that Reagan raised taxes twice. And what was the effect of this? The economy shrank by over 2% and the budget went haywire! Then Clinton took office, raised taxes on the wealthy, lowered them on the middle class, and wowie kazowie, our budget and economy were back in fullswing in not too long of a period. Inflation fell, 18 million jobs were created, and economic growth went from 2% from the Reagan/Shrub years to 4% a year! Clinton gave Bush a $158 billion surplus, and Bush turned it into a $127 billion deficit in one year. Now we're facing a $600 billion deficit.

Something is wrong here and it might have something to do with the tax cuts.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree with you Carne, but my question is what do we do about it? How do we create more jobs? I can think of no other way than to get Amercians spending money again, which they are doing now and the economy is recovering. With that spending comes increased manufacturing, etc., which leads not only to new hiring, it also leads to more taxes for the govt. coffers.

I'm no expert,* but I would think we could start by repealing most if not all of NAFTA and toughening up on Chinese imports a bit.






*This is a rare concession from me.

[dissention]

And also (I forgot to add more bull**** to my last post!):

66% of the last tax cut went to the most wealthy in our country, the top 10%.

When Shrub stole the presidency, Clinton forecasted that the ten year surplus was to be 5.6 trillion. But the latest ten year predictions say that only the surplus would be at a $1.6 deficit. That's a loss of over $6 trillion in only a couple of years!!! They love to blame Clinton, but the facts just do not support it. They say our country was in a recession in Clinton's last quarter, but it wasn't. The economy had grown for seven out of eight quarters under Clinton's watch, and that is not an environment that would even begin to start a recession. it takes longer than just one quarter to f*ck it up that badly.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
With that spending comes increased manufacturing, etc., which leads not only to new hiring, it also leads to more taxes for the govt. coffers.

Not when those manufacturing jobs are being shipped overseas.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
And also (I forgot to add more bull**** to my last post!):

66% of the last tax cut went to the most wealthy in our country, the top 10%.

When Shrub stole the presidency, Clinton forecasted that the ten year surplus was to be 5.6 trillion. But the latest ten year predictions say that only the surplus would be at a $1.6 deficit. That's a loss of over $6 trillion in only a couple of years!!! They love to blame Clinton, but the facts just do not support it. They say our country was in a recession in Clinton's last quarter, but it wasn't. The economy had grown for seven out of eight quarters under Clinton's watch, and that is not an environment that would even begin to start a recession. it takes longer than just one quarter to f*ck it up that badly.

Okay - this warrants a "OH COME ON"

Do you honestly think we were not in a recession or at least starting one when Clinton left office. PUUHHLLEEZZEEEE If so, I have bridge for sale in Brooklyn

I agree with you that W has not done the best job. But, my point is I know of no other job that could have been done. Your assertions about Clinton and his tax raises on the wealthy are perhaps true on the surface, but a closer examination yields a far more tangled web. A lot of the Clinton stuff was based on the stock market, the value of which which we found out toward the end of his term was based on nothing in that almost all of those way overpriced internet and other companies that shined in their stellar initial offerings were worth nothing. They did not have the sales to support their hyper expansion - which included hiring record amounts of people at high wages. Then, the corporate scandals, which occured under Clinton's watch, literally wiped out trillions of dollars and cost the nation hundreds of thousands of jobs. So, yes, the economy during the Clinton years was great, but it was built on nothing - it was a house of cards

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention


Improving economy? Tell that to tens of millions of working class individuals who aren't seeing any improvement in their lives. And wasn't it Greenspan who said just yesterday that although the economy is improving, the deficit is f*cked up that it threatens to flush the economy down the ****hole?

Yes. It had quite the impact on the markets as well.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Not when those manufacturing jobs are being shipped overseas.

True - but according to Greenspan - who knows far more than we do - these lower paying jobs will be replaced with higher paying ones over time. Again, I think that is horrible for people now.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Yes. It had quite the impact on the markets as well.

Yes, it did then, but the DOW is at 10,700 as of today and the other major markets are up as well

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
What about the 500,000 or so new jobs gained in the last two quarters?

Link? There were nowhere near 500000 jobs created in the last two quarters. Where on Earth did you hear that? Fox News?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, money must come from somewhere. it does not just appear.

Sure it does. They should be printing more any day now.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Link? There were nowhere near 500000 jobs created in the last two quarters. Where on Earth did you hear that? Fox News?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/economy/

Please provide a link refuting this