Bribe companies to hire ? Seriously ?

[rationalist]

Yeah, it was mad electing Obama when the country was in the ascendency under Bush.

What were people thinking of?

 

[cdunde1]

Obama knows it won't work. He is using it as a ploy to trick the nation into thinking he is trying to create jobs. Obama has found out quickly that leading this nation is way above his pay grade.

 

[rationalist]

Yeah, bring back Bush, he knew how to run a country

into the ground

 

[dogtowner]

Yeah, bring back Bush, he knew how to run a country

into the ground

perhaps Obama should consider JFK's successful model for creating jobs as opposed to FDR's failed one.

 

[top gun]

read

The president seems to fail to understand the nature of business. Not surprising as he was never a businessman but you would think somebody in the administration woudl have set hi straight.

Bribing companies to hire will not spur hiring.

You put on staff because you have the demand to justify it.

This is pretty simple.



If you want to help, settle people's minds about regulation, taxation and the like. Discard cap-n-tax. It will do nothing but subtract a trillion a year from the economy. Discard health ins reform. It will only raise costs and taxes everywhere. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent, all we need are tax increases as flimsy as our economy is now.

Until companies and the public nkow what the deal will be they will do nothing that they do not need to do.

What good is 5k if you are going to tax it back for 10K !

That's a GREAT post. It proves that the Republicans are completely full of sh!t when they say they want tax breaks for businesses.

They absolutely don't want tax breaks for businesses if President Obama is the one wanting to give it to them. Niiiiice!

 

[dogtowner]

That's a GREAT post. It proves that the Republicans are completely full of sh!t when they say they want tax breaks for businesses.

They absolutely don't want tax breaks for businesses if President Obama is the one wanting to give it to them. Niiiiice!

There are many ways to provide a break and all of Obama's are ineffective.

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes, sorry about that.

No sweat, I look forward to discussing the issue with you. I would like to see someone make an argument for how government can reduce the cost of providing care, I have yet to see even one person make such an argument. They can only make arguments about government's ability to reduce outlays on HC spending and that does not solve the problem, it only hides, or exacerbates, the underlying problem.

I think it's along the same philosophical lines as the stimulus spending.

Which is all based on the Keynesian economic theory. Japan has been using that economic theory for decades, they have spent about 200 Trillion yen over 20 years trying to revive their flailing economy and this year, their GDP will be no higher than it was in 1992. Japan was once the healthiest fiscal OECD country with debts of 6-7% of their GDP, now Japan's debts exceed 227% of their GDP. Their economy continues to shrink, their debts continue to grow and the Keynesian have been in control of the whole thing. Why do I mention this? The same thing is happening here.

My impression is that they have dramatically reduced lending to an almost zero level

As I said, they returned to fiscal sanity by lending only to those with good credit scores and a good likelihood of being able to repay the debt. The banks were on a very loose fiscal policy concerning lending because the federal government was eager to buy up the high risk loans from banks, the federal government is no longer buying these high risk loans, so compared to the situation before, yes, lending has dramatically shrunk, but that is not a bad thing, it is a sign that loose fiscal policy has been replaced by responsible lending and this greatly reduces the odds of another meltdown.

In some sectors it seems to have recovered a bit.

From your link:

Even with healthy growth in the second half of the year, the economy shrank 2.4% in 2009, the worst year for GDP since the 10.9% drop in 1946, when the United States geared back to a peacetime economy. Business investment fell the most since 1942....In the fourth quarter of 2009, about two-thirds of the growth came via the swing in inventories. Excluding the change in inventories, final sales increased at a 2.2% annual rate, a signal that the economy remained weak despite stellar topline numbers.

Inventories are a short term boost and they are expected to drop sharply once inventories are replenished. Government spending is not capable of creating a recovery, as Japan will learn the hard way. The Private sector leads recoveries and the private sector remains weak. There is a great deal of uncertainty in the private sector concerning Washington, Health Care reform, Cap and Trade, Financial Reform, etc. all these could greatly affect business small and large. While these question marks are hanging over the head of the private sector, any growth will remain tepid and weak.

Of course that would boost hiring more, but it would also be *much* more expensive.

I disagree. Right now all those unemployed people are not only not paying taxes, they are collecting unemployment benefits from the government. Take a moment to think about what that is costing the government in unemployment payments and lost tax revenue.

My plan would eliminate a significant portion of unemployment outlays and expand the tax base which would increase revenue. Just something to think about.