Thread: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney: Self-restraint in an age of rage

Originally Posted by bonehead

Jobs. jobs, jobs and more jobs. Not the retail "work full time and still qualify for government assistance" jobs mind you but the kind of jobs that can support people and families. A government that can work to that end.

How will we suffer? Do you really have to ask that?

I said it maybe a year ago and still maintain that the type of full employment this country once enjoyed will never be seen again in this country. I base this on several things. One, the mind set of today's employers is very different from their previous counterparts in the 60's -80's.

Two, my conversations with employees who come to my office which gives me a data base of several thousand to listen to. Most of their employers are typical Silicon Valley companies besides other non-tech firms. Many of these people are working long hours which I hear in my office as a health related complaint. They can't work less hours because of the demands of the work place and the need to keep their job most of all.

The employers are getting the work out of three by using two and sometimes of four by using two. The employers know they can get away with this because they hold the Sword of Damocles over their employees based on the scarcity of jobs. When they do need to hire they want to hire part time only so they don't have to pay any benefits. The new management of today sees nothing wrong with this system. So 5% unemployment is something I don't think I'll see in the rest of my life. I wouldn't count all the barely above minimum wage service industry jobs popping up everywhere in overall employment statistics.

Originally Posted by tbm3fan

I said it maybe a year ago and still maintain that the type of full employment this country once enjoyed will never be seen again in this country. I base this on several things. One, the mind set of today's employers is very different from their previous counterparts in the 60's -80's.

Two, my conversations with employees who come to my office which gives me a data base of several thousand to listen to. Most of their employers are typical Silicon Valley companies besides other non-tech firms. Many of these people are working long hours which I hear in my office as a health related complaint. They can't work less hours because of the demands of the work place and the need to keep their job most of all.

The employers are getting the work out of three by using two and sometimes of four by using two. The employers know they can get away with this because they hold the Sword of Damocles over their employees based on the scarcity of jobs. When they do need to hire they want to hire part time only so they don't have to pay any benefits. The new management of today sees nothing wrong with this system. So 5% unemployment is something I don't think I'll see in the rest of my life. I wouldn't count all the barely above minimum wage service industry jobs popping up everywhere in overall employment statistics.

Right now the employers have the aces to be sure and theyb are using it to their full advantage but "the unions are the thugs". LOL.
Either things will change or we can kiss the middle class and the American dream goodbye. I'd say that is worth fighting for.

Things I pick up while at work listening to people can be informative. Some of the stuff dealing with companies I can't repeat. Other stuff isn't sensitive. Today a gentleman was in my office who I have known awhile and owns a coffee roasting business. Asking how things are doing he says the only people making any money are those at the lower end of the price per pound. Those at the high end are stagnant, if lucky, or down. Somethings people have a hard time to do without and coffee could be considered one of those things especially in the Bay Area. So rather than give up they are buying less expensive roasted coffee. Same holds true for my regional wine managers where lower cost wine is doing ok and high end down. Even my coffee roaster is buying lower priced wine now.

Originally Posted by bonehead

Sorry JAD I screwed the pooch, er post. Your going to have to read the fine print.

Making me work.

So you are saying that if we were flush with money we can support further progressivism?

No. I was saying that progressives (or liberals, as some people refer to them) look at a pot of money and see an opportunity to fix yet another social problem. Don't get me wrong. Some noble experiments have been hatched along the way, some with enduring merit but many have a narcotic effect on people, hooking them into a dependency instead of a way out of their unfortunate state. But that's beside the point. The point is we can't afford those programs just now, certainly not new ones and not all of the old ones either. Therein lies the great tug of war between the GOP--the reinvented GOP, I should say--and the Democrats today. It's not that both parties don't see the need to cut expenses and revive the economy; its that the Democrats are still trying to hang on to a progressive era that has run out of steam while the GOP wants to curtail it and in some cases roll it back. The GOP's goal is to eliminate deficit spending and reduce the debt. I know the Democrats say they want the same thing, no doubt sincerely, but their approach is to cut as little as possible, increase taxes and wait for the economy to produce jobs.

Any legislation is good or bad on its own.

Sure, but apart from good or bad, there is a cost. The legislation may be great, but it's not so good if the country can't afford it.

For God's sake simplify the tax code and bring transparency. We also have to cut costs and everyone is going to have to feel some pain. No sacred cows.

Careful; you're starting to agree with me.

Lastly much of our problems stem from the lack of good jobs. We need to get more people getting an income and people paying taxes instead of collecting welfare.

Exactly. Unemployment is our most serious problem, not only for the people out of work, but to improve our tax revenues, as you point out. But real jobs can't be created by fiat. Jobs are at the end of a food chain that depends on increased consumption of goods and services which leads to greater output which leads to more hiring. The only way government can stimulate job creation is to adopt policies that stimulate consumption (lower taxes, extend energy credits, for example) and/or encourage business to invest more in capital expansion (lower the corporate tax rate, leave capital gains taxes alone, reward business investment, attract foreign companies to locate plants here, etc).

OK, aside from fighting Obama at every turn, name some things McDonnell has done that benefits all Americans.

Well, I think Dale will agree with me on this. Fighting Obama is one way McConnell has benefited all Americans.

JAD,

The GOP's goal is to eliminate deficit spending and reduce the debt.

i would be more convinced of that if it wasn't for the singular point that the ryan budget (endorsed romney) is heavy on steep further tax cuts, with unspecified deduction elimination.

also, IIRC, ryan used "dynamic scoring" in his budget, which means they are using supposed economic gains in calculating the cost of the budget...ie "waiting for the economy to produce jobs".

The only way government can stimulate job creation is to adopt policies that stimulate consumption (lower taxes, extend energy credits, for example) and/or encourage business to invest more in capital expansion (lower the corporate tax rate, leave capital gains taxes alone, reward business investment, attract foreign companies to locate plants here, etc).

that is -one- of the ways government can stimulate job creation. when times are good, indeed, it is perhaps the only way. but times are not all that good now. that's why i miss the era of pragmatic republicans; there used to be a time when republicans were champions of active monetary policy, and -targeted- tax increases/decreases. now it's just tax-cut-uber-alles.

Originally Posted by astralis

i would be more convinced of that if it wasn't for the singular point that the ryan budget (endorsed romney) is heavy on steep further tax cuts, with unspecified deduction elimination.

To be candid, I am barely familiar with the details of the Ryan budget. I am impressed with Ryan's wonk-like knowledge of the budget process and his ability to skewer popular budget misconceptions.

also, IIRC, ryan used "dynamic scoring" in his budget, which means they are using supposed economic gains in calculating the cost of the budget...ie "waiting for the economy to produce jobs".

What's wrong with that? We do it in business plans.

...i miss the era of pragmatic republicans; there used to be a time when republicans were champions of active monetary policy, and -targeted- tax increases/decreases. now it's just tax-cut-uber-alles.

It seems to me the road back to fiscal conservatism runs through austere fiscal reality. That's not a very popular idea, especially if you're getting government assistance or believe assistance is by right. But you can't get blood from a stone. We're in God awful debt, and we're still borrowing. Everyone agrees economic recovery is the ultimate way out, but not on what the best course is: increase taxes or cut spending?

Increasing taxes reduces consumer spending, which ultimately means less jobs. Or if you just tax the "rich" at a minimum 30% rate, you get what?...$5 bil in added revenues. That's like shooting a BB at a tank. Who is Obama kidding? The Buffett rule is pure politics, not serious fiscal policy. It distracts from serious debate.

The primary emphasis should be on cutting spending NOW. In pushing that route, the GOP appears as the bad guys, because they have to block Obama's spending initiatives to get there.

It's true, lower government spending will have some negative impact on the economy, but will also mean less government borrowing and less interest paid out. And a lot of big investment money will be looking for the next best place to be in after US treasuries...maybe the market, maybe start-ups... Who knows? And there's a bonus for consumers: lower inflation.

Your turn...