Ghost Of 1929 Re-Appears - Pay Attention To The Signals

[LITE-INN]

WELL GEUSS WHAT TNIE WITH ACA NO ONE CAM AFF0RD FOOD PERIOD gas prices at 10 a gallon no try 3 and my brother is doing quite well because the wars

[LITE-INN]

If just putting money into the economy was the answer, the almost 1 trillion stimulus bill Obama forced on us, would have done that. What did we get for that 1 trillion? and most important where did that 1 trillion come from to start with? MY point is you had to take 1 trillion away from someone, to give away 1 trillion. That never works. The goverment does not produce anything? Before income taxes, the USA had roads, schools, hospitals, College's. Who built them?

just think what money would do for small business

[dirtisforracin]

Tnie So you keep changing regulations, that keeps folks working? CEO has folks he has to answer to as well. Board of directors and share holders come to mind. No 900 million was spent to meet epa standards, but no that was not good enough for some climate change zelot and know it alls in the epa to tell the power company, you need to do more.
Meeting the standards that all products sold from other countries, have to met the standards of ones being built in america, would affect the poor you are worried about more then the rich. I thought you democrats were the only ones who cared about the poor. Take walmart away, wonder where all the poor are going to shop, Macys? Get real, those decisions would only affect the poor.

[dirtisforracin]

T.nie in theory. You and 15D theory "I would be for laws stating that goods sold in America have to be manufactured to the same standards required of American companies, regardless of where they are made." Sounds great, but what is the true reality of it? Whats the affects of it? Increase cost to consumers, to the rich, middle class and poor. Now we know the rich wont be affected, some in lower middle class would be affected, and most affected group, would be the poor. Why because they could not afford the product any longer.
Would it not cost more to make the product and then cost more to buy?

[t.nie]

Tnie So you keep changing regulations, that keeps folks working? CEO has folks he has to answer to as well. Board of directors and share holders come to mind. No 900 million was spent to meet epa standards, but no that was not good enough for some climate change zelot and know it alls in the epa to tell the power company, you need to do more.
Meeting the standards that all products sold from other countries, have to met the standards of ones being built in america, would affect the poor you are worried about more then the rich. I thought you democrats were the only ones who cared about the poor. Take walmart away, wonder where all the poor are going to shop, Macys? Get real, those decisions would only affect the poor.

Did you see what happened when Hostess went under? There's your answer. The demand for Hostess products did not go away. Other companies increased their market share, and someone else bought the rights to make and sell Twinkies, Cupcakes and Pies.

Take away Walmart, and another company will fill the void. Our problem isn't Walmart, it's the laws in our nation that allow a Walmart to pay crap money and dump their employees on food stamps and Medicaid while the company they work for and enable to make that profit does extremely well.

Believe me, the people who pocket ALL the money Walmart is making can certainly afford a pay cut to fund a pay increase and some better benefits for their employees. They aren't hurting financially one bit. But they are just doing what the laws in our nation allow them to do--take the money and run, and the hell with everyone else.

Until we change our perception of the American Dream from "Get Rich or Die Trying, Take as Much as You Can Get!" to something else that is less selfish and will reward the WORK of EVERYONE who contributes instead of allowing a few to exploit the masses, we aren't going to have a prosperous nation. We are just going to be a land that hosts a few prosperous people within our shores while the majority are their slaves.

[dirtisforracin]

Tnie were you for the auto bailouts? You did not answer my question about your theory of I would be for laws stating that goods sold in America have to be manufactured to the same standards required of American companies, regardless of where they are made." If the cost of the goods in increased, who does it affect the most?

[Bubstr]

If just putting money into the economy was the answer, the almost 1 trillion stimulus bill Obama forced on us, would have done that. What did we get for that 1 trillion? and most important where did that 1 trillion come from to start with? MY point is you had to take 1 trillion away from someone, to give away 1 trillion. That never works. The goverment does not produce anything? Before income taxes, the USA had roads, schools, hospitals, College's. Who built them?

One trillion stimulus bill. Would you like to break that spending down as to where what money went? If you look about 60% of that was some sort of Crony Capitalism bail out or pay off. Even the infrastructure improvement part, the part that did the most good at getting money to circulate was not effective, because it did not get money to those that had no choice but to spend it. The money went out and got in the hands of those that could afford to save it and the circulation stopped there.

So where did that money come from? The FED pulled it out of thin air. Every tax payer and even beyond taxpayers got the bill for it. Corporations pay at 24%, Market players pay at 15% and you know you're rate is higher that either of them. It doesn't stop there, as when we make money it adds to the total, witch makes all money worth less than it was before. This is a hidden tax that no one evades. Even the poorest of poor pay it. It's hard to put a fixed rate on it as it takes time for the economy to catch up with it. just guessing it will be around 3% of every dollar you have if it stopped there. It won't be. So who did we take it away from? We took the biggest chunk from the middle class. We took from the poor that have nothing to give. And the rich got the best deal.

The government makes nothing, but are the largest consumer in the country. The even go beyond that and force you to be a consumer. And as much as I hate to say it, with out them our economy would be belly up. I don't care what you have for sale or how cheap it is. it's worth zip if you don't have a consumer. I don't like that we have evolved to this, but with out them we would loose half or over of our economy. the circulation of money.

Who used to build schools hospitals and roads. You will find most schools where Church sponsored before taxes. They where supported by churches and denominations, but where not free. They where very expensive to attend and only the rich went. Hospitals where also mostly Church supported, but still not free. Most roads where unimproved trails but the first improved roads where what they call Plank roads. These where toll roads and you paid for the use or got shot. It was a business venture. I guess these where good in the fact, that the people that benefited from them, paid the bill. Even the first tax the US government had, was for funding a Navy to protect shipping. Who paid the bill was the exporters with a export tax. Could you imagine what something like that would effect today's world? Exion pays the bill for the first War in Iraq. Then we could choose whether we wanted to buy their gas instead of paying tax forever for it and they could choose if it was worth paying the price of killing people for profit.

[Bubstr]

T.nie in theory. You and 15D theory "I would be for laws stating that goods sold in America have to be manufactured to the same standards required of American companies, regardless of where they are made." Sounds great, but what is the true reality of it? Whats the affects of it? Increase cost to consumers, to the rich, middle class and poor. Now we know the rich wont be affected, some in lower middle class would be affected, and most affected group, would be the poor. Why because they could not afford the product any longer.
Would it not cost more to make the product and then cost more to buy?

You forgot to mention one important part. It would bring jobs back and we wouldn't have to subsidize the unemployed a byproduct of cheap abundant labor. This would spur the economy instead of choking it.

[15D]

Seriously? Obamacare is the main reason no one is hiring? I beg to differ. If there was money to be made, Obamacare, Medicare Part D, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, gas prices at $10 a gallon or not, businesses would be hiring. It has NOTHING to do with Obamacare, and EVERYTHING to do with the bleeding dry of the spare cash of the middle class that DID NOT start under Obama, and it won't end under him either.

Now the right just drove another nail in the coffin of small business owners by voting to discontinue food stamps for many of the poor. Thanks, right wingers! Right wingers are so Pro Small business, they do everything they can to ensure the customers of small business have no money to buy anything with!

Leading cause of reduction in work force Obama care... Right..... I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you too...

Here is a link to an article that explains why the ACA is keeping employers from Hiring.

http://moneymorning.com/2013/07/23/why-companies-arent-hiring-now/

Adding Medicare D probably boosted the economy as it brought more people into the pharmaceutical market. But that was years ago and is probably hard to measure today.

The War in Iraq has been over for a few years, but since it's wind down a surge was placed in Afghanistan. Typically wars boost an economy, although I wouldn't advocate starting one just to boost the economy. Purchasing the equipment to execute a war is one of the few ways that governmental spending has the same effect on the economy as private sector spending.

Governmental spending on welfare actual slows down an economy because the government is either taking loans or issuing bonds to pay for it or they are taking money away from those who earned it in the private sector who would otherwise spend it in the economy. Yes welfare recipients spend their coupons, food stamps or whatever other welfare they receive, but it comes at a cost. That cost is the overhead needed to sustain the bureaucracy that oversee's the programs. This overhead is a drain on the economy.

[15D]

One trillion stimulus bill. Would you like to break that spending down as to where what money went? If you look about 60% of that was some sort of Crony Capitalism bail out or pay off. Even the infrastructure improvement part, the part that did the most good at getting money to circulate was not effective, because it did not get money to those that had no choice but to spend it. The money went out and got in the hands of those that could afford to save it and the circulation stopped there.

So where did that money come from? The FED pulled it out of thin air. Every tax payer and even beyond taxpayers got the bill for it. Corporations pay at 24%, Market players pay at 15% and you know you're rate is higher that either of them. It doesn't stop there, as when we make money it adds to the total, witch makes all money worth less than it was before. This is a hidden tax that no one evades. Even the poorest of poor pay it. It's hard to put a fixed rate on it as it takes time for the economy to catch up with it. just guessing it will be around 3% of every dollar you have if it stopped there. It won't be. So who did we take it away from? We took the biggest chunk from the middle class. We took from the poor that have nothing to give. And the rich got the best deal.

The government makes nothing, but are the largest consumer in the country. The even go beyond that and force you to be a consumer. And as much as I hate to say it, with out them our economy would be belly up. I don't care what you have for sale or how cheap it is. it's worth zip if you don't have a consumer. I don't like that we have evolved to this, but with out them we would loose half or over of our economy. the circulation of money.

Who used to build schools hospitals and roads. You will find most schools where Church sponsored before taxes. They where supported by churches and denominations, but where not free. They where very expensive to attend and only the rich went. Hospitals where also mostly Church supported, but still not free. Most roads where unimproved trails but the first improved roads where what they call Plank roads. These where toll roads and you paid for the use or got shot. It was a business venture. I guess these where good in the fact, that the people that benefited from them, paid the bill. Even the first tax the US government had, was for funding a Navy to protect shipping. Who paid the bill was the exporters with a export tax. Could you imagine what something like that would effect today's world? Exion pays the bill for the first War in Iraq. Then we could choose whether we wanted to buy their gas instead of paying tax forever for it and they could choose if it was worth paying the price of killing people for profit.

You asked earlier in this post why the GOP opposed the last few jobs bills. I'd day your answer here pretty much sums it up for me. I would add that I would support a Job's Bill if it came from some other than Obama. The reason being is he broke my trust with his first one.

[Bubstr]

Here is a link to an article that explains why the ACA is keeping employers from Hiring.

http://moneymorning.com/2013/07/23/why-companies-arent-hiring-now/

Adding Medicare D probably boosted the economy as it brought more people into the pharmaceutical market. But that was years ago and is probably hard to measure today.

The War in Iraq has been over for a few years, but since it's wind down a surge was placed in Afghanistan. Typically wars boost an economy, although I wouldn't advocate starting one just to boost the economy. Purchasing the equipment to execute a war is one of the few ways that governmental spending has the same effect on the economy as private sector spending.

Governmental spending on welfare actual slows down an economy because the government is either taking loans or issuing bonds to pay for it or they are taking money away from those who earned it in the private sector who would otherwise spend it in the economy. Yes welfare recipients spend their coupons, food stamps or whatever other welfare they receive, but it comes at a cost. That cost is the overhead needed to sustain the bureaucracy that oversee's the programs. This overhead is a drain on the economy.

First off read the article you posted. No growth means no hiring and you can stop there until there is growth on Main Street.

Second spending is funded the very same way no matter where you spend the money. War, welfare or stick it up the fanny of some rich banker. Yes the poor spend it and there is a pay off in creating jobs. If it's a tax rebate, like the last time a stimulus was effective, there is no added bureaucracy. We are paying the IRS with it or not. Cutting everything and not creating new tax payers us the drain on the economy.

Do the people that write this kind of trash, even think about it before they start running off the mouth?

One more thing.
"1) Companies Cannot Find Qualified Applicants.

Despite the fact that millions of Americans are out of work, more than three million jobs out there are unfilled because companies cannot find qualified workers. Within manufacturing, there are more than 400,000 open positions, but employers say they can't locate the right human capital to fill them.

However, this problem could be the fault of the companies and a lack of an intelligent human resources strategy.

In a 2012 Gallup poll, two in three U.S. business owners say that word-of-mouth is one of the most important ways they find new workers. The second most popular source of locating workers is "referrals from existing workers."

Only 15% use the Internet as a critical source, 9% use newspaper ads, and 4% cite recruiters. Encouraging business owners to harness technology to find talent would be an important first step. Unfortunately, mobility and the willingness to move to places where jobs are available are limited by employees owning homes or due to their bias against where work is available."

When you see this magical quote, translate it to, We can't find qualified people at our price. We don't feel we should have to reimburse them for their expensive educations. Please allow more immigration of people that will work for little to nothing and be happy about it.

[Bubstr]

You asked earlier in this post why the GOP opposed the last few jobs bills. I'd day your answer here pretty much sums it up for me. I would add that I would support a Job's Bill if it came from some other than Obama. The reason being is he broke my trust with his first one.

Your ahead of me, I don't trust either side. Is that a excuse to sit on your hands and do nothing. If it is I want my money back I'm paying these deadbeats.

The point was, republicans killed the jobs bill. As the bills usually originate out of the house and the republicans control the house and everyone knows we need some kind of jobs bill. Why aren't the guys you trust doing something about it? I have the answer but you don't want to hear it. It would be terrible if the recession was turned around under Obama's watch. They are messing with our paycheck to play politics. Do you expect any more from the democrats if reversed?

[15D]

First off read the article you posted. No growth means no hiring and you can stop there until there is growth on Main Street.

Second spending is funded the very same way no matter where you spend the money. War, welfare or stick it up the fanny of some rich banker. Yes the poor spend it and there is a pay off in creating jobs. If it's a tax rebate, like the last time a stimulus was effective, there is no added bureaucracy. We are paying the IRS with it or not. Cutting everything and not creating new tax payers us the drain on the economy.

Do the people that write this kind of trash, even think about it before they start running off the mouth?

One more thing.
"1) Companies Cannot Find Qualified Applicants.

Despite the fact that millions of Americans are out of work, more than three million jobs out there are unfilled because companies cannot find qualified workers. Within manufacturing, there are more than 400,000 open positions, but employers say they can't locate the right human capital to fill them.

However, this problem could be the fault of the companies and a lack of an intelligent human resources strategy.

In a 2012 Gallup poll, two in three U.S. business owners say that word-of-mouth is one of the most important ways they find new workers. The second most popular source of locating workers is "referrals from existing workers."

Only 15% use the Internet as a critical source, 9% use newspaper ads, and 4% cite recruiters. Encouraging business owners to harness technology to find talent would be an important first step. Unfortunately, mobility and the willingness to move to places where jobs are available are limited by employees owning homes or due to their bias against where work is available."

When you see this magical quote, translate it to, We can't find qualified people at our price. We don't feel we should have to reimburse them for their expensive educations. Please allow more immigration of people that will work for little to nothing and be happy about it.

Read the article, does it just support my supposition, no. Does it waylay Tnie's assertion that ACA has nothing to do with the lack of hiring, yes it does. I decided not to cherry pick an article that just supported my thesis. I'm comfortable with my point of view and can tolerate a different take. The truth is the ACA has been hurting the economy since it became obvious that it would do nothing to reduce costs or retard out of control malpractice lawsuits.

Repeal of the law and bringing in a new law that would actually lower the costs for individuals and businesses and we would have a policy that would promote growth in the economy.

[15D]

Your ahead of me, I don't trust either side. Is that a excuse to sit on your hands and do nothing. If it is I want my money back I'm paying these deadbeats.

The point was, republicans killed the jobs bill. As the bills usually originate out of the house and the republicans control the house and everyone knows we need some kind of jobs bill. Why aren't the guys you trust doing something about it? I have the answer but you don't want to hear it. It would be terrible if the recession was turned around under Obama's watch. They are messing with our paycheck to play politics. Do you expect any more from the democrats if reversed?

To be honest I'd have to go back and look at the proposal since some time has past. With that said, I don't think it was an honest proposal, just something to trip up the Republican Nominee in some straw man argument. I beleive even the Senate refused to debate it, but it's been awhile and my facts may be off.

Yes the Republicans need to have a policy of their own. Ryan a couple of years back, 2011 I believe, put for a proposal to get the budget back into balance while attempting to stimulate growth. This is the very proposal that led a Liberal Cause to make a video of a Ryan Look-alike pushing Grandma off the cliff. At the present time it is nearly impossible for anyone to put in place a plan to get us back to work and a balanced budget.

Romney ran on a plan that I thought had merit; downsize the government workforce through normal attrition, lower the top tax bracket to catch more of the upper middle class while over all lowering the tax burden on average for those at the top. He would keep in place the middle class tax cuts Bush put in place. Most importantly he would slow the growth of government below that of inflation. It's this last part that I think had the potential for the best economic outcome for everyone.

[Bubstr]

To be honest I'd have to go back and look at the proposal since some time has past. With that said, I don't think it was an honest proposal, just something to trip up the Republican Nominee in some straw man argument. I beleive even the Senate refused to debate it, but it's been awhile and my facts may be off.

Yes the Republicans need to have a policy of their own. Ryan a couple of years back, 2011 I believe, put for a proposal to get the budget back into balance while attempting to stimulate growth. This is the very proposal that led a Liberal Cause to make a video of a Ryan Look-alike pushing Grandma off the cliff. At the present time it is nearly impossible for anyone to put in place a plan to get us back to work and a balanced budget.

Romney ran on a plan that I thought had merit; downsize the government workforce through normal attrition, lower the top tax bracket to catch more of the upper middle class while over all lowering the tax burden on average for those at the top. He would keep in place the middle class tax cuts Bush put in place. Most importantly he would slow the growth of government below that of inflation. It's this last part that I think had the potential for the best economic outcome for everyone.

Both a form of Austerity economics. Something GB has been doing for 5 years now. It does not promote growth, in fact, the very opposite. With out growth we remain to have high unemployment and a stagnant or worse economy. This is fine for someone wanting to hold on to his money during a recession, but it has no way of getting out of the recession.

The two most popular theories of economics are Austrian and Keynesian, the first is basically cut and save and the second is spend and make. There is a place for both, but very hard to implement at the right time. It's a lot like the stock market, buy low and sell high. Cut and save when doing well and spend and make when things aren't so well. That seems simple enough until you think of a leaky roof. It don't leak when the sun is shining and you don't want to fix it in the rain. Do you see the problem with these proposals?