home

The Key To Job Growth Is Increased Spending

Ben Nelson:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has raised the concern that a shortage in customer demand could render the tax break useless. “There’s a question of whether that puts the cart before the horse,” said Nelson. “If I don’t have enough customers for my product, hiring more people is not going to help and tax credits are not going to be to my advantage.”

True enough Senator Nelson. That is a very compelling reason to shelve the tax cut formula and to increase government spending targetted to increasing aggregate demand. This is why the mindless Republican/Blue Dog approach to stimulus and job creation should be a nonstarter. It is also an explanation of what was flawed in the stimulus bill last year - too much non-stimulative tax cuts, not enough stimulative government spending.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | Senator John Mellencamp? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    This for sure (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 03:18:08 PM EST
    is a handout to big business whose attrition rates are high.  But small companies need big business to spend and with the tax credit they will receive, they will start spending mid 2011, about the same time the wheels will be moving consistently on the economic wheel.  If I were a republican with aspirations of the oval office in 2012, i would not vote for this......

    Hey Ben, DUH. nt (none / 0) (#2)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 03:30:39 PM EST


    heh (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 03:34:46 PM EST


    From the little I know (none / 0) (#4)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 03:40:48 PM EST
    the problem for small business is lack of credit.  If they could get credit, they could do the hiring they would do normally.

    And yeah, even the NFIB knows that the problem is consumer demand, not tax cuts or lack thereof.

    Doesn't work that way (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:02:48 PM EST
    You don't borrow money to hire more employees when there is nobody buying your product.  That is a double dose of business suicide cyanide.

    Parent
    guess what (none / 0) (#10)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:12:59 PM EST
    SOME businesses actually would hire even in this climate if they could get some credit.  And they could at least keep employees.  Lack of credit is a big problem.

    Parent
    We are past the point where credit (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:19:39 PM EST
    is going to help most small businesses.  We need customers now.

    There were a number of good stories about the Obama Administration's plan to extend credit to small businesses - well, they were really "bad" because they all said exactly what I am saying now which is that all the credit in the world cannot make up for a lack of business.  The plan would have been great last year around this time, but now business has slowed to the point where many small businesses are so in the hole and hurting for business that loans aren't going to stimulate economic activity.

    Parent

    Completely correct (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:24:53 PM EST
    As a small business owner, I will not incur the added burden of increased debt for the sake of hiring employees.  

    Simple supply and demand economics 101.

    Parent

    Seasonal business? (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:37:12 PM EST
    any thoughts on that?  Buying equipment?

    I am not just making this sh*t up.  If you need an example.

    Parent

    What are you not getting? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:42:02 PM EST
    Seasonal means there is a buying season on the horizon.  Sure, I'll short term borrow to increase inventory/staff knowing there will be increased sales coming in a natural buying "season".

    That is not the case here.

    BTW, why beat this dead horse when a post below you are saying something different.  Regarding your comment below, yes having more credit available would be nice, but we're not touching it without increases in business.

    Parent

    I am beating a "dead horse" (none / 0) (#22)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:50:29 PM EST
    because it is possible in the context of a giant economic problem that there is MORE than one thing that needs to be done.  

    Parent
    In the Olden Days (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 08:03:13 PM EST
    We used to call you a savvy businessman :)

    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#17)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:29:23 PM EST
    freeing up credit would be good.  Maybe not a top priority, but good.  I'm not thinking of it in terms of being a major job creator, but as something that would be particularly helpful for those businesses that survive on credit for part of the year.  The tax credit for new hires is more of the Ezra Klein economic-recovery-by-statistical-wizardry-while-ignoring-the-actual-problem stuff.  A replacement for bold action.

    Parent
    More credit at reasonable rates will (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:15:05 PM EST
    be great when there is business to justify utilizing it.  But right now, it is not where I would expend huge amounts of political capital.  I would focus on government spending and investment to warm up the economy.

    Parent
    Some free college! (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 08:06:11 PM EST
    Amtrack type system connecting all major cities!  

    Parent
    Take those billions that Obama promised (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:08:51 AM EST
    to basically an elite group of nuclear contractors and use that for green tech investment - and I am not talking loans - I'm talking about the government footing the bill for building a TN Valley type green system.  I am so tired of what little government money is going out landing up with the usual government contracting suspects.

    Parent
    Demand drives everything (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by esmense on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:01:47 PM EST
    Credit makes sense only if it can help you take advantage of new/as yet untapped markets and demand for your product.  

    First you have to identify potential customer, then you have to figure out the minimum in extra labor and other resources you need to reach and serve those customers, then, if you can't finance expansion yourself and the return for doing so looks good, you go to the bank.

    The problem today is that too many small business owners (I am one) are seeing their traditional customer base shrink and few new areas where lucrative consumer growth is developing.


    Parent

    lack of credit (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:28:03 PM EST
    what do you collateralize?  Credit is a small part of the problem.  If you have 125k real equity in your home you can borrow 75k tomorrow.  So I borrow 75k to hire who and for what?

    I would venture to say that most small firms are not looking at loans to hire new people.  What we are faced with is laying off someone that has worked with you for 10 years, whose family you dine with and sometimes even vacation with.

    As a small business owner, are you willing to take a loan against your house to keep people employed or hire new people in this economy?

    The problem is 17.5% UE and fear (for those who are still employed but saving like crazy because they fear getting laid off).  

    A tax break for hires does not monetize for at least 18 months.  Companies are not going to hire 50k employees for a 5k tax credit.  However, those with high attrition will receive a heckuva credit next year 2011 and will reinvest some of that into the business.

    It is a great reelection plan and aside from immediate infrastructure spend how else are jobs going to be "created?"

    Our representatives conceded 10% UE in 2009 with the stimulus figures they provided in worst case scenario (they actually were under but still a concession) and they are conceding 10% again for 2010.  

    Politically though, they are gearing up for late 2011......

    Parent

    You're assuming that we have the (none / 0) (#8)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:04:18 PM EST
    business to sustain taking on employees and/or that I want to take a loan out from the bank to hire someone to hang around with me a do nothing during this extremely slow time.  The only companies who can benefit from those tax credits are large corporatations like WalMart who both have business and have something for employees to do all day.

    Parent
    Also, high turnover is built into the business (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by esmense on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:54:18 PM EST
    model for large, low wage businesses like Walmart, fast food chains like McDonalds, hospitality jobs (large hotel chains, etc.) where demand for labor is seasonal. For them, the credit may put extra money in their pocket without really creating NEW jobs. (On top of the subsidies many low wage employers already receive for hiring people as part of the Welfare to Work program.)

    Small businesses are more likely to need people with specific and multiple skills. That means more training and makes retention a very important issue. It also means that, contraryto the common myth, "small business" does not mean "low wage." Your small, local burger place or chain, for instance, because its less automated and doesn't have franchise expenses probably pays it employees a higher hourly wage than the nearby McDonalds or Burger King -- both because it needs to and can afford to. But that's another rant entirely -- I'll save it for any future discussions about the minimum wage.

    Parent

    I'm saying (none / 0) (#12)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:14:56 PM EST
    lack of credit is a big problem, and I don't see how the tax credits are really going to help with that.

    Parent
    We are saying that the lack of credit (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:20:58 PM EST
    is no longer a problem because the economy has cooled to the point where most of us do not have anything to justify getting a loan for other than trying to keep the lights on until some customers start to surface.

    Parent
    lilburro, you're correct (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:29:32 PM EST
    I'm sure you also know that in an economy that's in such bad shape as ours is many things must be done, of which small business credit is but one, albeit a very important one. Your critics are also correct (to a smaller degree) that if there are no customers no amount of credit is going to help much.

    But.....unemployment/underemployment is 10-20%, not 100%, and the banks' suicidle tight credit policy guarantees that any recovery will be cut off at the knees unless they change.

    One small example: Our family is in the commercial/industrial maintenance business; blacktop, sealcoating, striping, speed bumps, etc. Fortunately for us it's not affected as much by the depression in our country because large real estate complexes must maintain their properties regardless of the larger economy. So here we are, Spring just ahead, and the time we normally would be stocking up on materials we'll need. Our tanks hold about 40,000 gals. of sealant at a cost of about $65,000. We have signed contracts with Hilton, Ramada, Walmart, plus Hospitals, schools, shopping centers, etc.

    In prior years banks would fight with each other to loan us the money to stock up. This year. Nada, Zilch, Drop dead!

    We'll make it somehow, but if someone can tell me how this "tight money" policy is helping our economy, and our country, please come forward. I'd really like to know.

    Parent

    That is exactly the type (none / 0) (#143)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:29:36 AM EST
    of business that I am talking about.  Thank you.  A close friend of mine works with small business all the time and I hear these types of stories frequently.  

    Parent
    I'm inclined to think... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 03:57:58 PM EST
    the key to responsible job growth is reallocated spending, not just another increase in spending.  

    Unless we just plan on stiffin' China and Japan and the others holidng all our iou's, in that lets just cut every American a check for 10k with a stipulation they have to spend it all within 6 months.  Party like its the end of the world!

    Can you explain what (none / 0) (#7)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    government spending targetted to increasing aggregate demand
    actually is?

    Wikipedia Explains It All (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:14:46 PM EST
    Aggregate Demand = C + I + G + (X - M) where G = Government Spending.  Therefore it follows from algebra that increasing Government spending (ie G) increases Aggregate Demand.

    Parent
    G is not mandatory compared to the private element (none / 0) (#14)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    Additionally, Keynes did not endorse govt spending at the creation of massive debt.  

    Parent
    This is not the time to reduce (none / 0) (#19)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:41:46 PM EST
    national debt. We have six depressions in our nations history due to periods of debt reduction.

    Parent
    Only 1 and at a stretch 2 (none / 0) (#21)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:47:48 PM EST
    of those depressions are clearly identified as being caused or triggered by federal debt reduction/management.

    Parent
    Based on the data, (none / 0) (#23)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:51:34 PM EST
    you are not correct.

    Parent
    How (none / 0) (#26)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:02:19 PM EST
    does Jefferson's actions of the 1807 depression have anything to do with debt reduction?  The economy imploded due to lack of exports and imports.

    The one that I describe as a stretch was when the fed govt trying to manage currency levels against its gold reserves in the 1870s.

    The 1890s depression was the collapse of several major railroads.

    The one in the late 1830s was in direct result of congress/federal government actions.

    Parent

    You are entitlrd to your opinion, (none / 0) (#29)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    and there are many causes to any depression. However, the data doesn't change. It was a cause in each case.

    Parent
    Then post (none / 0) (#30)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:26:27 PM EST
    your justification and reasons for your claim.

    Parent
    So you have no rebuttal. (none / 0) (#53)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:10:53 PM EST
    Instead of being snippy (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:15:51 PM EST
    why not just show us the data that supports your claim?

    This is actually a very interesting discussion, I and I'm sure some others who are reading it would be interested in the data you have to support your side.

    Parent

    I'm not being snippy (none / 0) (#59)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:18:09 PM EST
    I posted direct examples to my comment.

    I'm awaiting a response to myopinion's claim.

    Parent

    No you're not being snippy. (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:19:26 PM EST
    "my opinion" is.

    My comment was to him/her.

    Parent

    OK. First thing to start with is that out of (none / 0) (#70)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:35:06 PM EST
    seven periods of debt reduction we have six depressions that coincide with them. The one off case being the Clinton years. Now of course conditions that exists during one time period do not necessarily match any other time period. Also, occurrence of two things together doesn't always mean causation, but 6 out of seven is very unusual. Beyond that requires a bunch of research and I really don't have time to go into that, but be my guest and look into it.

    Parent
    Come on... (none / 0) (#72)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:40:04 PM EST
    We had a recognized DEPRESSION during the Clinton years????

    Please do some basic research before posting such nonsense.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#78)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:46:18 PM EST
    We are waiting (none / 0) (#81)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:51:43 PM EST
    myself and as I read sarcastic unnamed are still waiting for you to offer up some support of your 6 depressions statement.

    Parent
    BTAL the six depressions are a matter of history. (none / 0) (#86)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:55:31 PM EST
    Ok, then please provide (none / 0) (#97)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:13:05 PM EST
    even a semblance of facts to support your claim.

    I laid out specific answers to the known depressions.

    You've only offered up a single un-substantiated comment.

    Parent

    I'm not convinced you're wrong, but not convince you're right either...

    Anyway, usually, on the internet, if you make a claim of fact you're kinda on the hook to support it.

    If you don't, your statements have no cred.

    iow, w/o supporting facts, the statement of "fact" that you presented looks a whole lot like it's just your opinion, or, even, "my opinion."

    Of course everyone's entitled to their opinion...

    Parent

    You try to give me too much credit. This isn't (none / 0) (#83)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:53:41 PM EST
    anything new. Again, be my guest look around.

    Parent
    Where? On Glen Beck's website? (none / 0) (#88)
    by esmense on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:56:35 PM EST
    I would not think this (none / 0) (#110)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:46:40 PM EST
    would fit with Glenn Beck's point of view.

    Parent
    Cest la vie.

    Parent
    very snippy (none / 0) (#95)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:10:59 PM EST
    You mean, he should (none / 0) (#76)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:45:31 PM EST
    trot out the Monetary History of the United States by Milton Friedman and qoute some of that mind numbing stuff about 19th Century economics?

    And Monetary policy does not control all....

    Parent

    Keynes did endorse government (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:28:35 PM EST
    spending to spur demand.....

    Reagan implemented Keynesian ecomonics--increased government spending (in the form of the defense build up) and decreased taxes, and of course the deficit increased substantially....

    I would like to hear a coherent conservative explanation of how the Clinton tax increase in 1993 prevented growth and harmed the economy.....

    Parent

    Try again (none / 0) (#47)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:00:06 PM EST
    The US went Keynesian when Nixon took us off the gold standard and issue a fiat currency.

    Parent
    Sure, Nixon did that (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:16:43 PM EST
    You're not suggesting we go back to the rigid gold system are you?  

    FDR proved Keynes right between the New Deal and WWII.

    The Reagan group like to say that they proved Keynes was wrong and Laffer's Supply Side economics was right....Nonsense....The old phrase "We are all Keynesians now" has been true for quite some time....

    The tax cuts are a weak version of Keynesian stimulation of demand....But they also explode the deficit...

    Parent

    No am not suggesting we revert to the GS (none / 0) (#62)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    Just pointing out economic history.

    As for FDR and Keynes, that is not completely factual.  The New Deal and WWII are worlds apart from each other as to economic theories.  Based on your posts, I know you realize that.

    As to Reagan, I contend that the Soviets and the Cold War were just as large of a threat as WWII both economically and politically.  Reagan won his war with dollars where as FDR won his with dollars and blood.

    Again, Keynes did not support massive long term debt as part of his theory.

    Parent

    I disagree with Tom Clancy (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:34:12 PM EST
    that Reagan won the Cold War....Not historically accurate....

    The Cold War doctrine of Containment was not a conservative idea....The conservatives like Curtis Lemay and Gen. MacArthur would have tried to win a nuclear war with the Soviets...The Liberals saved us from that trigger-happy result.

    Reagan inherited decades of a strategy that was designed by Dean Acheson and Harry Truman...

    And, the Soviets would have imploded with or without Reagan....They were far weaker than advertised....And Walesa and Gorbachev had a lot to do with it....

    Reagan was basically a fraud--both on economic and defense issues...

    His administration presided over a holocaust in Guatemala that stains everything connected to it.....

    But the current issue is how to fix the economy now.  Conservatives want to re-do Bush II tax cuts, and I say let's do what Bill did....

    Parent

    Okay what would have been (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 08:17:31 PM EST
    the trigger if Reagan had not pushed Star Wars?

    Parent
    Oh, geez, look up (none / 0) (#125)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 09:32:53 PM EST
    the economic trajectory the Soviet Union was on, will ya?  Their Rube Golberg economic management was coming apart at the seams.  It was corrupt, spectacularly incompetent and totally unsustainable, with or without an arms build-up.

    And my goodness, "Star Wars" wasn't even involved in what happened to the SU.  It didn't exist then, and still doesn't.  It was a waste of our money, not a significant drag on the SU economy.

    Yikes.

    Parent

    My understanding is different (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 09:48:43 PM EST
    It was the understanding of the Soviets that they could not keep up with the proposed Starwars that triggered the implosion.

    Parent
    Russia was already cratering (none / 0) (#139)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 02:48:23 AM EST
    with or without Reagan doings.  Trying to give Reagan credit for ending the cold war is like giving Clinton credit for the tech gains that occured during his presidency....I will give Dubya credit for totally squandering that largess though.

    Parent
    Same thing (none / 0) (#9)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:06:17 PM EST
    Same thing a small business owner told the NPR reporter who was talking about Obama's plan. He said a tax credit for hiring wasn't the point, the point was having people buy his product enough that he would have to hire someone (and have the money to do so). He sounded pretty angry about it too.

    Both parties have really stiffed small business owners, who represent another opportunity for Democrats to blow (heh). The reason many of them vote Republican is purely from the incredibly onerous paperwork they have to file and regulations they have to follow--it's really overwhelming--and the comparatively high taxes (relative to large corporations). They vote R because the Republicans are always promising to cut their taxes and reduce their paperwork, and they always believe it.

    Disclosure: This is purely anecdotal. Lots of small business owners in my town, and Mr. DO was a successful small business owner for years. So I've met quite a few, including one who kept his workers employed on no salary when his business was failing, JUST so they could stay on the health insurance plan. They all vote reliably R and always cite those two reasons.  

    The real issue is disposable income (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 04:53:24 PM EST
    and the only way to increase that is cut taxes for the individual. When he spends all the other problems are solved.

    But instead of what worked for Kennedy, Reagan and Bush we get the government sucking money out of the economy by borrowing. And we have people looking at a huge tax increase when the Bush tax cuts expire... Plus, no one knows what is going to happen on health care and what it will cost who.

    Perfect storm of how to destroy the economy and keep it down.

    So if you have zero income, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:27:22 PM EST
    how does a tax cut help.
    The trickle down theory has been in place for 30 years now with terrible results.

    Parent
    Here is the thumbnail (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:40:25 PM EST
    response to these GOP talking points.

       1.  JFK cut taxes.....Yes, the top marginal rate was 90% as an aftermath of WWII....He lowered them slightly....

       2.  Reagan cut taxes....Well, he employed standard Keynesian deficit spending accomplished via a large defense build up and increase in government spending, along with cutting taxes--which created a huge deficit--classic Keynesian macroeconomics....

      3.  Bush II's tax cuts did not matter.....How well did the economy do during 2000-2008 on job creation?  Or on any measure?

      4.  And the kicker:  median real wages remained stagnant or decreased during the time frame of 1980-2010, except for the last term of Bill Clinton.....Reagonomics did nothing for average workers but did increase the deficit so that defense contractors made a lot of money.

      5.  FDR, the New deal and WWII proved that cutting taxes did not get us out of the Great Depression.  Conservatives often say that the New Deal failed and it was only WWII that got us out of the Great Depression--as if WWII implemented lower taxes, less regulation, and less government spending....

       6.  Bill Clinton raised taxes amid the forecasts of conservatives that it would kill economic growth and lead to a recession....In fact, it led to a huge economic boom and budget surpluses....This is the conterfactual that conservatives never discuss when talking about tax policy....

       

    Parent

    Wow, talk about (none / 0) (#37)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:44:14 PM EST
    talking points....

    Parent
    Rebut one of them? (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:49:59 PM EST
    Anything wrong with what I said....

    Take the Clinton tax increase...how did that harm the economy?

    Parent

    You're recollection of history is a bit rusty (none / 0) (#77)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:45:58 PM EST
    Clinton campaigned on no taxes.

    It was the battle between Clinton and the Newt led congress that resulting fed. budget situation.  

    Clinton benefited economically from two things:

    •  A republican congress.
    •  The dot.com bubble.

    Politically, Clinton benefited by moving to the right/center right after the 1994 mid-terms.

    Don't get me wrong, as a conservative, I do not have a serious issue with how the Clinton administration turned out for the country. (with a couple minor non-economic exceptions).

    Parent

    Spending went up under Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:54:33 PM EST
    Bill won the government shut-down battle with Gingrich....

    And, you forget that revenues exploded....

    You just dismiss the good economy as the result of the tech boom....Well, isn't that the point?  The Clinton era policies including a healthy tax increase allowed the tech boom to occur....it was not socialism to raise rates for the top brakets to close the deficit....or if it was socialism it sure resulted in a lot of money being made by millionaires and billionaires....

    The more precise point is that raising taxes does not necessarily hurt economic growth....a key Republican talking point that was destroyed by the 1993 tax increase....
     

    Parent

    The Internet bubble (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:02:48 PM EST
    helped.

    $12.00 a barrel $.97 cents/gallon gas helped even more

    When the bubble burst in Marach 2000 the NASDAQ ran off 50% in the next 12 months.

    And taking money out of the private sector has to always hurt growth. In Clinton's case the economy was growing and then it dipped and recovered... But the real unknown is how much was lost in the dip and the out years?

    Parent

    So, you just invent (none / 0) (#146)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 11:00:38 AM EST
    facts to support your theory:  the economy would have done better but for the tax cuts....Any proof of that?  Nope....You don't have facts to support your theory, so you just invent them....

    Thus, the facts don't matter....The reality here is that Bill Clinton raised taxes significantly and the economy prospered....The deficit was erased.....At mimimum, the conservatives cannot argue that raising taxes always hurts the economy because we have actual proof to the contrary.  

    And, engaging in your hypothetical facts factory fantasy, if we had a tech bubble in the late 1990s, would not that bubble been even worse with an economy that you say would have been growing even faster?  You can have too much growth....The growth under Clinton was optimal....

    Parent

    Well, since you asked (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:33:15 PM EST
    Bush II's tax cuts did not matter.....How well did the economy do during 2000-2008 on job creation?  Or on any measure?

    When the Democrats took over both Houses of Congress  in 2/2007 unemployment was under 5%, gasoline was around $2.00 and the Dow around 14000...

    I think that answers your question.

    By mid summer of 2008 the unemployment rate was going straight up, the market was going straight down and gasoline was holding steady at around $4.00-$4.50. All that in a short 17 months. In October the Democrats passed a bank bailout bill with no controls on so the bankers did what came naturally, they stole their share and called it bonuses. Actually Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac had been doing that for years, but since those guys were Demos no one thought anything about it.

    Since Obama's election the trend continues with the market run off about 20% before climbing back up to around 10,000, about 25% below Bush's high with unemployment and gasoline prices going up. In fact unemployment is at a 26 year high.

    Parent

    The economic policy (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    that was in effect from 2007-2009 was Republican....We had the Bush tax cuts....We had the Bush emphasis on deregulation.....We had Bush's man in charge of the SEC....

    What Democratic policies were in effect in 2007-2009?  The Democrats raised taxes, right?  Uh, well, no, that did not happen....

    Your "analysis" is a simplistic, partisan talking point that ignores that the current recession was caused by Bush era policies of deregulation....

    Parent

    Next thing you will tell me is that (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    the Constitution doesn't say that Congress is the branch that spends and taxes.

    And then you will follow by trying to dodge this:

    The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

    The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

    The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

    That was 9/11/2003. Now what response was there?

    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Link

    Now, if you want to blame Bush for not trying harder, go ahead. McCain tried again in 2005. Point is Frank was the ranking Minority member and without his buy in everyone knew it was going no where.

    And you should also remember that one of the issues Democrats ran on was that energy was too high. Yet they fought against every attempt by anyone to increase drilling. Could it be because Pelosi owned stock in one of Pickens' corps?

    Oh, you say that increased drilling would take years...... true. But what was happening was a speculative bubble, much like the Internet bubble that blew up and burst in 2000 under Clinton... And when Bush finally signed his EO opening up drilling on the outer shelf, the prices started falling because the psychology was broken.

    Parent

    I can cherry pick too (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:12:09 PM EST
    From Wikipedia:

    A proximate event to this increase was the April 2004 decision by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to relax the net capital rule, which permitted the largest five investment banks to dramatically increase their financial leverage and aggressively expand their issuance of mortgage-backed securities. This applied additional competitive pressure to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which further expanded their riskier lending.[47] Subprime mortgage payment delinquency rates remained in the 10-15% range from 1998 to 2006,[48] then began to increase rapidly, rising to 25% by early 2008.[49][50]

    Let's see, who was it again in charge of the SEC in 2004 when they relaxed rules?

    Parent

    Chicken and egg (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:34:48 PM EST
    Without turning Freddie and Fannie loose, or better stated, because they weren't reigned in... the market had a willing buyer..

    Now where did it start?

    In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

    snip

    Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

    snip

    ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

    Link

    I'd say that Wallison's statement has to be understatement of the century!

    Parent

    It is the chicken and egg paradox (none / 0) (#109)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:41:52 PM EST
    I think at this point blaming it on Fannie and Freddie is counterproductive when you realize that Fannie and Freddie were just responding to the market.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:56:40 PM EST
    The management, make that Democratic Management, make millions in bonuses based on the increased business. One, Raines I think, wound up having to give a small bit back.

    They stacked the deck, dealt the cards and changed the rules.

    This was the classic case of Government Capitalism, very similar to what the Chinese have done.

    If you want to say that the Repubs are partly to blame I'm not gonna argue but the vast majority is on the Demos.

    Parent

    Again? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 08:10:26 PM EST
    Who was in charge of the SEC in 2004 when rules were relaxed and Fannie and Freddie were forced to compete or die?

    Who was it again that allowed those "too large too fail" investment banks to run amok?

    I'm not buying what you're selling.

    Both parties are responsible and the cries of Democrats are more culpable is a complete sham.

    Parent

    Compete or die? (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 10:02:55 PM EST
    Surely you jest. The 8000 pound gorilla was in danger?

    ;-)

    Parent

    Those gorillas were competing with (none / 0) (#135)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 11:21:06 PM EST
    the 5(large investment banks that had their rules relaxed) 8000 lb elephants. You know the "too large to fail" firms we also bailed out?

    Parent
    You seem unable to grasp who expanded (none / 0) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 07:22:27 AM EST
    the role of Fannie and Freddie in 1999.

    Hint. It wasn't the Bush administration.

    Parent

    This gets to the heart (none / 0) (#148)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    of the argument....

    Conservatives here are stuck on the Democrats v. Republican game....The conservatives want to "win" or make the Democrats "lose."...... This is why Drudge and conservatives are so invested in disproving global warming...It is not about whether there is a true environmental problem but about finding a way to beat Al Gore--that is the goal, and how they get their jollies....

    The argument here is really about policy:  Is a policy of less regulation, less taxes and less spending the best policy right now.  That is indeed typical Republican policy.  But even if Barney Frank were soley responsible, or responsible in some way, for the lending mess--that still doesn't answer the policy question of whether more or less regulation of lending is a good idea....

    I don't beleive Republicans bring up the Bill O'Reilly talking point of Frank's comments in 2003 because they actually believe in more regulation of the financial sector.  No, not at all....It is just about beating the Democrats, or embarrassing them, about "winning."  If they have to adopt an arugment that runs counter to their own views to win, they will do that....

    The big picture partisan issue is who is more likely to do a better job of regulating the financial sector.  I think the Democrats would be better at it....Many progressives here would probably say the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans....

    But is is clear that the Republicans do not support further regulations of the lending industry because they are currently opposing such regulations that are now being proposed...Bottom line: conservative arguments about dropping the ball on regulation in the 1990s, or by Democrats, is insincere hypocrisy.

    Parent

    Why are Republicans now (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:10:19 PM EST
    opposing regulation?

    2003?  The Republicans and conservatives controlled the Congress.....At the height of their power actually....

    Parent

    Curious (none / 0) (#100)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:16:16 PM EST
    Do you own a business?

    Have you ever started a business?  If so, how did it turn out?

    Parent

    Irrelevant ad hominem (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 11:15:34 AM EST
    But your post here is interesting....Rather than argue facts (I guess you ran out of those), you (try to) attack me personally....Reminds me of how conservatives tried to deflect criticism over the Iraq war by calling into question Liberals' patriotism.....

    To answer your question, yes, I have and so far it has turned out well.

    The "regulations" you whine about are generally local city zoning laws and regulations, business permits, or state labor laws....There aren't that many Federal laws or regulations, and a good CPA can get you in compliance in no time flat....all businesses have to comply, so there is no competitive disadvantage in complying.

    It is interesting to note that we have more conservatives trying to grandstand on this blog.....Do you really believe that you are going to convert anyone here?  Win an argument?  My theory is that conservatives feel like they have the upper hand and will "win" the elections in 2010, so they pop out of the woodwork to taunt....When the conservatives are down, you don't get the aggressive antics like we now see here.  The reason?  For conservatives, it is about winning, not so much policy.....Beating liberals or progressives is the goal.  Conservatives can't stand being on the losing side and internalize the loss, and need to be a "winner" because of their inherent authoritarianism....

    Progressives, on the other hand, actually are more interested in policy....

    Parent

    It wasn't a personal attack (none / 0) (#150)
    by BTAL on Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 12:41:22 PM EST
    but a question to determine if you are arguing from experience or from a theoretical position.

    As someone who has put their personal finances on the line to start companies and how is responsible for writing those paychecks I'll defend my position based on those experiences.

    Govt interference does come from all levels and the more it comes the less productive any company is in the marketplace.  

    It is the progressive policies that are part and parcel of the push back by conservatives, not a win for the sake of winning attitude.  So much for a broad brush ad hominem you cried foul about.

    Parent

    Anyway you cut it (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:19:33 PM EST
    and we see it being cut right now over healthcare....nothing in DC gets done without buy in from both sides. Frank said no and no amount of pushing would have changed it... Just as healthcare hasn't been passed even with a cloture majority pre Brown... and the Demos still have huge majorities...

    Plus, the Demos could have tried to do something in 2007. They did nothing but try and find ways to put Bush appointees in jail.

    Parent

    It wouldn't nearly as much (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:43:59 PM EST
    as sending random packs of greenbacks through the mail.

    Parent
    You have to increase the disposable (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:41:22 PM EST
    income of the 90% that still are getting a pay check.

    They are the only ones who can buy actual goods sold by actual people and made by actual people.

    Borrowing money to give to people to spend just doesn't work. (That doesn't mean that I am against safety nets, etc. So please don't go there.)

    Parent

    It's already been done (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:58:39 PM EST
    The first stimulus that went out was a blank check. Guess what? People chose to save that disposable income. Unless you can directly mandate people have to spend giving individuals money is a crap shoot. That's why liberals feel government spending(where the government has 100% control over the money flow) is a superior way to boost the economy. It also means that you'd have to toss the idea of deficit reduction out the window.

    Oh and Obama also attempted to increase disposable income by a smaller increment by suspending some of social security tax on individuals and adding an extra $25 in everyone's paycheck. It still hasn't pulled us out. He even went as far as giving the 10% without work a small boost.

    Parent

    There was no COLA for Social Security (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:04:39 PM EST
    this year.

    Lack of that, plus an increase in Medicare premiums means that every one took a pay cut.

    Parent

    This year (none / 0) (#99)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:14:05 PM EST
    has been 2 whole months. Was the proposition a rousing success last year?

    Parent
    The working class has been taking a paycut (none / 0) (#101)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:17:15 PM EST
    for years. Where have you been? The real dollar value of wages have been on a downslide for a good decade.

    Parent
    Maybe some have (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:36:53 PM EST
    maybe some haven't..

    This was an actual pay cut, not a claimed inability to keep up with inflation.

    Parent

    Cherrypicking again (none / 0) (#113)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:57:59 PM EST
    The wage decrease over the years is just as real as a wage "cut" you are purporting. People didn't get a COLA because there was supposedly no inflation.

    I wish I saw this marked concern in 2005

    http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/12/declining_real.html

    Parent

    Inflation does not hurt everyone (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 08:14:23 PM EST
    Debtors, for example.....pay back in cheaper dollars..

    Savers lose because they are paid in cheaper dollars...

    I am not insensitive to wage increases not keeping up with inflation, but that still is different than an actual cut.

    Parent

    Inflation hurts consumers (none / 0) (#124)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 08:35:49 PM EST
    Their dollars do not go as far. The lack of a COLA increase is similar to what a person who saw the real dollar value of their wage decline would experience.

    I'm not impervious to the fact that "some"(which is by the way the same way you addressed real value of wage decrease)people have been told that they are not getting a wage increase or in order to maintain their job they will have to take unpaid days off either. As I said, I just wish I had seen this marked concern back when "some" people first started experiencing wage disparities years ago.

    Your economy is only as strong as your weakest links.

    Parent

    Having lived through the Carter years (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 09:54:09 PM EST
    I think I have a fair understanding of inflation.

    Parent
    Fancy that (none / 0) (#136)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 11:21:57 PM EST
    I was alive during the Carter years as well.

    Parent
    Right now--the government is pumping (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:02:57 PM EST
    money into the economy....You got the debt backwards--it represents money spent, or pumped into the economy now.  Obama cut taxes--more money being pumped into the economy.....Obama has not raised taxes one cent....

    And the Fed has interest rates at historic lows and is buying securities....

    All these things, both monetary and fiscal policy, are stimulative---the gas pedal has been floored....

    With respect to the expiring Bush II tax cuts--that would put taxes back to the Clinton rates....and we all know what a terrible economy resulted with that rate structure....And Bill raised taxes at the same point in the economic business cycle as they are set to expire in--just as the economy is set to recover....Conservatives predicted dire consequences from Bill's tax increase, and it did not happen.

    The expiration of the Bush II tax cuts will help with fighting the budget deficit....and should not harm economic growth--they did not under Clinton....

     

    Parent

    We tried that way already (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:23:54 PM EST
    Remember when everybody pretty much got a check? The problem is that individuals don't have to spend that money and likely won't if they are worried about losing their jobs. Instead what they do is save that money which does nothing for the economy.

    Likewise they tried this by giving people a smaller sum of money that they took out of their Social Security tax allotment. The problem I suspect in this instance is it was eaten up thew inflation that suppoedly doesn't exist(except in the minds of those of us who have seen our health, electric and other things shoot up).

    Parent

    The income level (none / 0) (#126)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 09:34:37 PM EST
    that were affected by the Bush tax cuts and will be affected when they expire don't SPEND that money, they invest it, for crying out loud.

    Parent
    As a business owner I want (none / 0) (#33)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:34:55 PM EST
    •  Less taxes.  Every dollar I spend on taxes is one less I have to grow my company.  Growing my company includes hiring more people.

    •  Less regulation.  Every hour spend on BS forms and filings is an hour less I or an employee has to generate new business which translates into higher revenues and expansion = more employees and/or better wages and benefits.  Those lost hours also take me away from improving my product thereby reducing my competitiveness and future growth opportunities.

    If I am not profitable, the business goes under.  Any and all jobs/paychecks/families relying on my business are now on the public dole.

    Government has done NOTHING to help me start and grow my companies.

    Sure it has (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:48:12 PM EST
    Without government you would not have any chance of success.  The government provides roads, currency, workers who can read and write, and all kinds of things that you rely on everyday....but just fail to recognize....

    Without a functioning legal system, you have no commerce of conseqeunce....

    Without needed regulation of banks, you have wild panics and times when the money supply contracts, and times when the entire system shuts down as it almost did in 2008.  We need more government regulation of the shadow banking system akin to the regulation of the formal banking system that was implemented in the 1930s.

    The government can create a favorable economic climate that fosters demand.....

    The best phrase that sums it up was what Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio said at the 2008 Democratic Convention:  Conservatives who are born on third think they hit a triple.....  

    Parent

    Am assuming (none / 0) (#45)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:58:01 PM EST
    That you are replying to my post at #33 but clicked the wrong option?.?.?

    If so, you are also offering up a strawman argument.

    As a conservative, I fully support the need for a govt.  I see the govt's roll as the striped shirts in a sporting event.  They establish out of bounds markers and ensure fair play for all by the rules.  What they DON'T do is make up the rules during the game, play favorites in their infraction calls or inject themselves into the game as players.

    What they also DON'T do is build the venue or mandate the attendance.  

    Hopefully, you are a sports minded person to follow the analogy.

    As for Strickland's comment.  I was not born on third base.  

    Parent

    We disagree (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:04:54 PM EST
    You said government does nothing to help you....

    And the Federal government can stimulate demand....FDR proved that....

    Parent

    No. WWII proved that. (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:57:57 PM EST
    If WWII had been a natural disaster (none / 0) (#138)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 11:56:22 PM EST
    The LESSON of its financing, and the resulting growth of the domestic sector, would be the same. Government spending increasing demand.  It is  proven economic theory -- and this is where you're having trouble connecting the rhetorical dots --  which doesn't REQUIRE a war to implement.  Believing it does is more than a little irrational, IMO.

    Parent
    I forgot (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 11:36:28 AM EST
    Spending by the Federal government on the military is inherently good; whereas, domestic spending is inherently bad.....Got it.

    WWII proved that if anything the New Deal was too weak.....

    Parent

    But wait. Your argument above (none / 0) (#50)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:04:56 PM EST
    is that you don't want the government playing ref.  

    Parent
    No, that is not what I said (none / 0) (#52)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:10:49 PM EST
    I don't want the refs:

    • Actively involved in the game as a player
    • Changing the rules during the game
    • Creating the venue or attendance
    • Playing favorites between the competitors

    Simple concept.  However, the govt is doing all of those.

    Parent
    So, like sports, if you can't play by the rules, (none / 0) (#57)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:16:25 PM EST
    don't play.

    Parent
    Good businesses adapt (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:21:55 PM EST
    And will adapt to new laws and regulations--and even higher taxes--just as they did in the 1990s....

    And, drawing on the Social Darwinism espoused by conservatives: if you can't compete, tough beans....

    Parent

    No problem (none / 0) (#64)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:24:32 PM EST
    I'll take my ball (profits) as the reward for the risk I took.

    Guess the left will then complain about my poor unemployed previous employees.

    You can't play both ends against the middle and expect to win.

    Parent

    Ah, so you just want tax cuts so you get (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:44:15 PM EST
    more money. Now that you are being honest we see why tax cuts to business don't create jobs.

    Parent
    Ok quiz me this then (none / 0) (#79)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:49:09 PM EST
    When I paid/pay my employees but I don't take a paycheck, who is the bad ass then?

    When I put my personal credit on the line but my employees still get paid, who is the bad ass then?

    When I risk my family's future and lose, who is the winner?


    Parent

    Blame Bush and the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:07:03 PM EST
    and their emphasis on deregulation....Financial panics seem to result in the worst of our economic downturns....Certainly true of the banking crisis in the 1930s and 2008.

    Our government let the mortgage industry create new financial products that as far as I can tell were wholly unregulated....Most loans are not owned by banks--the banks just service the loans, which are owned by separate investors...

    So, a couple of years ago the lenders just lent money to anyone, then immediately sold the loan to somone who packaged them into securities and then re-sold them, divorcing the risk of default from the amount realized....  This hands-off policy cannot continue and the Republicans are now fighting reasonable regulation of this shadow banking system.

    Parent

    Not an uncommon situation in a small biz (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:52:29 PM EST
    in 2009. As I can testify to.

    Parent
    Strickland (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:42:29 PM EST
    I think you have more help than you realize....

    Parent
    Survival of the fittest (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by waldenpond on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:49:26 PM EST
    In the true spirit of conservatism.... for any set of circumstances (taxes, regulation) someone will come along that can do it better and cheaper.  If you can't compete with another company that can survive a particular tax structure and regulatory system, you must fail.

    Parent
    If government helped you start and grow your (none / 0) (#35)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:43:30 PM EST
    business, would that be socialism?


    Parent
    Strawman (none / 0) (#38)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:46:06 PM EST
    The govt DID NOT help me start my business.  Nor, I'll say the vast majority of other small businesses in this country.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:53:53 PM EST
    Did you build all of your own roads? Hire private police?

    Parent
    Not a strawman, because your whole (none / 0) (#44)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:57:32 PM EST
    argument is that you want the government to help you.

    Parent
    Completely (none / 0) (#105)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:33:26 PM EST
    clueless.

    Have you not been reading what I have said?

    I DON'T WANT GOVT IN MY PERSONAL LIFE NOR IN MY  BUSINESS.

    Got it?

    Parent

    So no police or military? (none / 0) (#116)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 08:05:46 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#104)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:30:40 PM EST
    In 2007 the government backed 100,000 small business loans.

    In 2008 the number was 70,000. The amount of money it covered was $17.96 BILLION.

    http://www.inc.com/news/articles/2008/10/government-loans.html

    They might have not have helped him personally but I don't think you should speak on behalf of the majority of small businesses.

    Parent

    70,000 (none / 0) (#108)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:37:22 PM EST
    us peanuts to the total number of small/medium sized businesses in the US.

    In relation to some other "if you can't compete" posts here.  I'll say, if you can't compete without govt support, then yes you should fail.

    Where's all the liberal/progressive anger against govt bailouts of small businesses that take govt handouts to get started and/or grow?

    Hypocrisy much...

    Parent

    Let me get this straight? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 08:21:42 PM EST
    There are approximately 6 million small business firms that have workers according to FactCheck in 2008. Providing almost 18 billion to them for small business loans is chicken feed. However, the conservative viewpoint is that spending 1 trillion to cover 30 million people's health care is exhorbiant. (smacking head on desk at the hypocrisy)

    Parent
    It's roughly the (none / 0) (#114)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:59:06 PM EST
    size of NASA's budget. It's only peanuts in regards to the defense budget.

    Parent
    A large number of small (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 09:35:04 PM EST
    businesses are defense contractors, or suppliers to defense contractors. I know a lot of them, and to a man they will say that they don't want government in their business, and that their taxes are too high.

    Parent
    I love this video (none / 0) (#66)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:32:25 PM EST
    Oh really (none / 0) (#43)
    by cenobite on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:54:04 PM EST
    Government has done NOTHING to help me start and grow my companies.

    Rubbish.

    Let me know when you stop using government-built transportation and communication networks for your business. Also, workers that can read and write and do arithmetic.

    Or you could always move to Somalia. I hear planes are leaving government-built airports in that direction every day. Bon voyage.

    Parent

    More strawmen (none / 0) (#46)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 05:58:49 PM EST
    Or something (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by cenobite on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 08:25:48 PM EST
    You can find all kinds of countries that do not supply the giant pyramid of infrastructure your business sits on top of and takes advantage of.

    It is ludicrous to suggest that this doesn't directly support your business -- try opening a semiconductor fab in Haiti.

    I don't know exactly what business you're in, so I can't give you more unambiguous clear examples of how Uncle Sam made it possible.

    It's positively insulting for you to be so ungrateful to your country for the highly privileged environment you are taking advantage of to start businesses.


    Parent

    I'm still waiting for you to explain (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:08:02 PM EST
    what roads you drive on.

    Parent
    Roads that (none / 0) (#54)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:12:22 PM EST
    are paid for by all users through the gas and use taxes.  Same roads my 80 year old neighbor lady uses to go to church.

    Again, pure strawman argument in relation to business.

    Parent

    You are aware (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:15:35 PM EST
    that there is no direct correspondence between taxes paid and services received, right?

    Please explain how you could run your business without the government creating roads.


    Parent

    I also want to know (none / 0) (#69)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 06:35:01 PM EST
    if his business uses currency. Those printing presses don't run for free either.

    Parent
    I think the reasonable ones (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:13:47 PM EST
    understand that you are speaking of DIRECT help. The Feds didn't cosign any loans, provide any property, tools, etc....

    But the unreasonable ones have a point in that with out government we wouldn't have a country.

    Now both sides can yell at me.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#102)
    by BTAL on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 07:19:09 PM EST
    for applying more than 2 brain cells to the discussion.

    Cheers!

    Parent

    disagree = no thought (none / 0) (#134)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 10:19:59 PM EST
    That is a fallacious argument.

    Parent
    disagree = unreasonable (none / 0) (#133)
    by my opinion on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 10:14:42 PM EST
    That is a fallacious argument.

    Parent
    What provided the final blow? (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 08:08:11 PM EST
    Oil prices. By 4/2008 the housing panic had lessened and started to come under control. Yet between 5/1 and mid June oil jumped about $40. The run up to $4.00 gas acted like a huge tax on Joe and Jane and the economy tanked and the housing crisis roared out of control as defaults soared.

    After Bush signed the EO, disgustingly late, I guess to match the disgusting lack of action by the Demos, the speculation burst and oil prices collapsed. The lowest price for gasoline I saw was $142.

    And the economy did stabilize and showed some signs of life.

    In the past year gasoline climbed back in the $2.60 range and this extra $30-$40 a week hit on the pocketbooks has stifled growth.

    It all starts with disposable income and energy prices. And Obama is captive to high taxes and high energy costs.

    Nothing is gonna get better until he is swept out in 2012!

    And the Fed told us that today, except they didn't reveal the names until the next of kin is notified.


    Housing panic has lessened and come under control? (none / 0) (#128)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 09:43:55 PM EST
    Where is that, exactly? Foreclosures will set another record this year.  Commercial real estate has yet to hit bottom.  Has Obama done enough to help it? Not in my opinion.  Did Bush or McCain even know there was a problem? Not on your life.

    Yes, energy prices are key, and they can be manipulated by any energy company with political goals in mind. All the more reason to move ahead asap with alternative fuel sources.

    Parent

    Read date (none / 0) (#131)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 10:01:00 PM EST
    Oil prices. By 4/2008 the housing panic had lessened and started to come under control.

    Then oil spiked and the rest, as they, is history.

    I am all for alternative fuel sources... Got any that will price out near $2.00 a gallon?

    Hybrids show promise, but they use non-alternative gasoline and pure electrics still have performance/use problems.

    Parent

    I'm glad you are certain housing is under control (none / 0) (#137)
    by cawaltz on Wed Feb 17, 2010 at 11:40:56 PM EST
    I don't think that all the economists I have read would agree with you.

    1 in 5 houses are underwater. As of November of 2009(you'll notice that is AFTER what you call bottom) 1 in 7 homeowners was at least one month behind on their mortgage. 4.47% of homes were in foreclosure. Those numbers were double the 2008 numbers.

    Furthermore, the problem is no longer limited to sub prime borrowers but has spread.

    Additionally, the number one cause of foreclosure now is unemployment. That's a pretty significant hurdle to overcome when you have people saying that unemployment is not going to improve anytime in the immediate future.

    http://www.inteldaily.com/news/139/ARTICLE/12791/2009-11-20.html

    I wish I could say I believed we have hit bottom. Sadly, I think we may be headed for some choppy times if Obama does go through with his grand plan and attempt to reduce the deficit right now. The government needs to be doing more, not looking to cut back.

    Parent

    You can't read or somnething. (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 08:28:10 AM EST
    This is what I wrote:

    Oil prices. By 4/2008 the housing panic had lessened and started to come under control. Yet between 5/1 and mid June oil jumped about $40. The run up to $4.00 gas acted like a huge tax on Joe and Jane and the economy tanked and the housing crisis roared out of control as defaults soared.

    I wrote the exact opposite of what you claim.

    And it is going to happen again. And energy costs are the driver.

    And neither party, but the Demos in particular, seem to want to fix it.

    And alternative fuels are not the answer because they are as costly as the inflated price of gasoline.

    Parent

    You are attributing the housing bubble bursting (none / 0) (#144)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    and all associated housing ills to oil prices? Ooookay.

    Parent
    Noooooooo (none / 0) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 10:01:51 AM EST
    I noted that the housing bubble, by itself, was bad but had somewhat come under control by actions of the Fed. However, when gasoline jumped again, this time to the $4.00 plus range the hit on the economy pushed many homeowners, who had been just barely holding on, into foreclosure.

    At the same time transportation, food, entertainment and other industries took a hit and started shedding more people which compounded the problem.

    Or do you think $4.50 gasoline had no effect?

    Parent