The it being economy and what spurs job growth. I can't believe the lib way of thinking will ever stand a chance at turning this economic mess around. There will always be areas where there is growth,a friend of mine runs a large company that has over 150Billion dollars in profit over the last 30 months after almost closing the doors 4 years ago. Public company,good story.

But the smaller businesses he owns are stagnant and will remain so due to the climate O has created for people with money. These are the people who spur our growth and they will spend the next 4 years sitting on their hands. There is zero incentive for them to risk their $ when the reward is simply not there. Romney, who clearly knows how to make a buck, had a plan where the rich would again open their pocketbooks and take risks to make a lot of money. That incentive is now just a wish and we shot ourselves in the foot as a country.

Obama literally has lost his compass and underestimated the 1%. They will wait him out,no question.He jumped the shark when he bailed out Wall St. and it has been downhill since then. This is going to get worse....

If it were not for the RICH....we the poor would not have a job..:)

In my 40 years of being in business a poor person never hired me

the answer is No

We had an executive staff meeting on Monday to go over the ramifications of Obamacare on our business. The owner hired a consultant who recommended we cut hours on all of our hourly employees working 30+ hours per week so we don't have to offer them health insurance and they can go into the exchange. How does this help employees? If they have to work fewer hours, the'll be earning less. If we don't cut hours and keep the employees who work over 30 hours per week at their regular hours, we'll end up being penalized close to $2 million. That certainly isn't going to help grow the business and/or allow us to expand and bring more people on board. And how can we justify price increases when people are already struggling to get by?

,a friend of mine runs a large company that has over 150Billion dollars in profit over the last 30 months after almost closing the doors 4 years ago. Public company,good story.


I agree with you but did you really mean $150 Billion in profits or was that a typo. If that is true, that is one big ass company your buddy runs. To put it in perspective, GE had $14 billion in profits last year. Walmart had $16 Billion in profits and they are ranked 25th in the world for profitability. Did you mean revenue?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We had an executive staff meeting on Monday to go over the ramifications of Obamacare on our business. The owner hired a consultant who recommended we cut hours on all of our hourly employees working 30+ hours per week so we don't have to offer them health insurance and they can go into the exchange.

Sounds like you have a fairly large company, FP.
How are the small companies going to be able to afford a consultant to
figure it out?

I think Americans are capable of getting "it", the problem is they are misinformed.

For example, on all networkss except one, they say that Romney wants to destroy Medicare and Social Security. The fiend! He must hate old people! Those networks don't say that the surest way to destroy those programs is to do nothing.

Every network except one says that Romney is anti-teacher. Sounds horrible, right? Who could be against teachers? But the truth is, the liberals who promise to give teachers a blank check, aren't doing teachers any favors, because the teachers won't get the benefits they were promised.

The liberal agenda reminds me of the parent who wants his teenagers to see them as "cool", so they host underage keg parties.

The conservative agenda is like the strict, fair parent, who wants his kid to turn out OK, even if it means saying "no" on occasion.

It's even more than...IMO they do not have respect for the working class either...

Today Gov Patrick has issued (via a directive of some kind) for State schools to admit illegal aliens into the school at the in-state rate. This pisses me off to no end. I have always viewed the in-state discount as a "benefit" for those that paid STATE TAXES. I guess I was wrong.

A few days ago I was in a CVS. A girl brought in a pile of coffee beans she wanted to return. She originally bought them with food stamps. The CVS attended told me it is common practice because they will not let you return food for cash in the grocery store (if you bought them with food stamps) so they find a way to launder the food stamps for cash at stores like this. I told the attendant that the sad part was she probably has a hungry kid at home but is buying non food items (probably booze, cigs or drugs) for herself.

What kills me is Obama wants to expand the food stamp program. I still can't believe he got elected.

Romney was right, it was about gifts. I knew when he mailed checks (real) money to people to go and spend as a economic "stimulus", this country was doomed. The people who spent that money went straight to wallmart, bought crap made in china and stimulated their economy. Or went to the package store.

Enjoy your poverty.

Today Gov Patrick has issued (via a directive of some kind) for State schools to admit illegal aliens into the school at the in-state rate. This pisses me off to no end. I have always viewed the in-state discount as a "benefit" for those that paid STATE TAXES. I guess I was wrong.

.

Here in the People's Republic of Konnecticut, we also give in-state tuition to the children of illegals. Giving tuition subsidies to people who break the rules to avoid paying taxes, at the expense of others who are struggling to play by the rules. Brilliant.

It's mind-boggling, indefensible, and stupid. One of the most glaring symptoms of the mental disorder known as liberalism.

I don't even see why these kids are admitted to public schools, let alone at a discounted rate. Every spot taken by one of those kids, is one less spot for the child of a citizen who supports that school with the taxes they pay. If I got back every dime I've ever paid in taxes, it would be a whole lot easier for me to send my 3 kids to college. But no, I have to pay my taxes (which are higher to provide services like education and police protection for illegals who pay no taxes), then my taxes are raised again to pay for tuition subsidies for their children.

I don't necessarily like the idea of punishing a kid for the actions of his parents. But there are too many programs that reward people who break the rules or who are reckless, at the expense of those who try to do the right thing. TARP, auto bailouts, mortgage modification programs, free birth control...where are the freebies for middle class people who are doing everything right? That's what I'd like to know.

I also worked at Stop & Shop when I was in high school. Every single month, when the food stamps came out, I'd see the same welfare jerks trying to use food stamps to buy cigarettes and other hitngs that weren't eligible for food stamps. Every single month, the same jerks would be in my aisle, trying to buy cigarettes with my tax-provifded food stamps. And they bitched about what right the gumbint has to tell them how to spend "their money", they didn't get that it was my money...

Get rid of food stamps, and open up more soup kitchens. If these people want food, let's give them a hot healthy meal. If you give them currency, many will use it for things that I don't want to pay for - cigarettes, booze, God knows what else.

Sandman, the reckoning is coming. The house of cards will fall eventually - too late for places like MA and CT, but it's still coming.

Wonderful Thanksgiving to you & yours...

Every spot taken by an illegal does not necessarily take a spot away from a legal taxpayed student, but it does expand the size of classrooms which in turn necessitates the "need" for more teachers and an expansion of the rest of the size and services of the educational system. It's a twofer for big government. And it does require more taxes. What the heck, the rich can pay for it, right?

A few days ago I was in a CVS. A girl brought in a pile of coffee beans she wanted to return. She originally bought them with food stamps. The CVS attended told me it is common practice because they will not let you return food for cash in the grocery store (if you bought them with food stamps) so they find a way to launder the food stamps for cash at stores like this. I told the attendant that the sad part was she probably has a hungry kid at home but is buying non food items (probably booze, cigs or drugs) for herself.

What kills me is Obama wants to expand the food stamp program. I still can't believe he got elected.
You didn't hear?? Food stamp programs help stimulate the economy.

Tomorrow Patrick is planning to announce a hike in the state gas tax.
No doubt the fed will be doing the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tomorrow Patrick is planning to announce a hike in the state gas tax.
No doubt the fed will be doing the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If he does, I'm only filling up in RI.

If he does, I'm only filling up in RI.



Fox news reporting it this morning.
Pretty sure RI is a liberal state just like most of the northeast.
They will follow suit
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

off road diesel

off road diesel



You drive your diesel truck around on off road fuel ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not saying anything, I run biodiesel quite a bit

No doubt the fed will be doing the same.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny, the federal gas tax hasn't gone up in 20 years but suddenly there's no doubt :smash:

-spence

He jumped the shark when he bailed out Wall St. and it has been downhill since then. This is going to get worse....
Bush bailed out Wall Street and if Romney was president then he would have bailed out Wall Street as well. I would have, you would have. There was no choice.

What makes the economy work is a mix of supply and demand. High household debt and stagnant wage growth in the Middle Class is a massive part of the overall problem that have killed demand one the artificial credit bubble was removed.

You don't counter this simply by artificially increasing supply. Government spending is part of GDP after all and programs to help the unemployed or poor do go right back into the economy. If you cut spending too fast you risk weakening the foundation while you remodel the upstairs.

-spence

Bush bailed out Wall Street and if Romney was president then he would have bailed out Wall Street as well. I would have, you would have. There was no choice.

What makes the economy work is a mix of supply and demand. High household debt and stagnant wage growth in the Middle Class is a massive part of the overall problem that have killed demand one the artificial credit bubble was removed.

You don't counter this simply by artificially increasing supply. Government spending is part of GDP after all and programs to help the unemployed or poor do go right back into the economy. If you cut spending too fast you risk weakening the foundation while you remodel the upstairs.

-spence
No.. Making them productive individuals is how you strengthen the foundation
What we do now weakens it. We are getting to the point where soil can't support the building
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Government spending is part of GDP after all and programs to help the unemployed or poor do go right back into the economy.
-spence

And here lies the problem...........Government spending = higher taxes. Government spending is not the answer, it’s the problem...........

Funny, the federal gas tax hasn't gone up in 20 years but suddenly there's no doubt :smash:

-spence



The fact that this country gave Obama another 4 years thanks to corruption, gifts & handouts means he's going to do what ever he wants and the brain dead supporters who think only the rich in this country are going to pay more, have a rude awaking coming !

Government spending is part of GDP after all and programs to help the unemployed or poor do go right back into the economy.
-spence

But it's not the same effect as what happens in the free market.

Let's say i choose to buy a car. I choose to trade my money for the car, and the dealership agrees to trade the car for my money. Both parties enter the contract voluntarily, and thus both parties realize an economic benefit.

I don't know why you don't grasp this, but that's not what happens with government spending. In that case, my money gets involuntarily confiscated from me in the form of taxes, and I have little to no say in how it gets spent. Furthermore, in the current environment, the welfare programs may be doing as much harm as good, as they create a sense of entitlement that many poor folks get addicted to. They are therefore willing to not work, and collect welfare instead.

That does not represent wealth creation, it is wealth reduction.

We have 40 years of empirical evidence to see what happens when you throw money at the problem of poverty. Often, poor people are not poor because of a lack of money, they are poor because of behavioral issues. Those issues may not be solved, and indeed may be exacerbated, when you hand those people a check.

there is a component to Obamacare that uses the data collected from the enrollees that then determines their eligibility for ALL entitlement programs available to them and either notifies them or automatically enrolls them...they have a term for it that I can't recall like "mainstreaming" or something, the intent is to make sure that everyone that they have collected data on through the new healthcare legislation is also getting every possible government benefit that they might be eligible for...it's where we're going...get used to it....some call this progress:) Benefits.gov

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than one in seven Americans are on food stamps, but the federal government wants even more people to sign up for the safety net program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been running radio ads for the past four months encouraging those eligible to enroll. The campaign is targeted at the elderly, working poor, the unemployed and Hispanics.

The department is spending between $2.5 million and $3 million on paid spots, and free public service announcements are also airing. The campaign can be heard in California, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, and the New York metro area."


.................................................. ...........


"Welcome to USA.gov,” a website maintained by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), bills itself as the “primary gateway for new immigrants to find basic information on how to settle in the United States” — featuring a prominent section for new immigrants about how to access government benefits.

“Depending on your immigration status, length of time in the United States, and income, you may be eligible for some federal benefit programs,” the Web page reads.

“Government assistance programs can be critically important to the well-being of some immigrants and their families. Frequently, however, there is a lack of information about how to access such benefits. Benefit programs can be complicated and you may be given misleading information about how they operate.”

The DHS page offers links to government websites that explain how to access benefits including food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, Medicare, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the “official website with information on all available federal benefit programs,” with a nonworking link to Benefits.gov."

"Benefits.gov
Your Path to Government Benefits"

Did... did I really just see that?

I don't want to live in this world any more.

I grew up a kid in the Boston inner city in the Boston (Live in Jamacia Plain, my grandfathers auto repair shops were in Roxbury mid 1960s till 1970 then Dorchester till 1984)
I saw as a kid welfare families every single day.
Back then most all of them were skinny thin people, lots down on their luck , lots victims of lack of opportunity , lots just plain stupid.
2-3 generations later most cases the only skinny people you will find in those neighborhoods are the drug attics. And the majority on the doll are proud of it and expect the handouts !
Ya.
Our welfare system betters people's lives & makes us a better society !





But it's not the same effect as what happens in the free market.

Let's say i choose to buy a car. I choose to trade my money for the car, and the dealership agrees to trade the car for my money. Both parties enter the contract voluntarily, and thus both parties realize an economic benefit.

I don't know why you don't grasp this, but that's not what happens with government spending. In that case, my money gets involuntarily confiscated from me in the form of taxes, and I have little to no say in how it gets spent. Furthermore, in the current environment, the welfare programs may be doing as much harm as good, as they create a sense of entitlement that many poor folks get addicted to. They are therefore willing to not work, and collect welfare instead.

That does not represent wealth creation, it is wealth reduction.

We have 40 years of empirical evidence to see what happens when you throw money at the problem of poverty. Often, poor people are not poor because of a lack of money, they are poor because of behavioral issues. Those issues may not be solved, and indeed may be exacerbated, when you hand those people a check.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ya.
Our welfare system betters people's lives & makes us a better society !


The late, great Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a senator from NY (Hilary took his seat when he retired). He was a very liberal Democrat. When the current welfare programs came out, Senator Moynihan caught a lot of heat when he said that these programs (which give financial incentives for destructive behavior) would mean the end of the black nuclear family. Everyone said Moynihan was a moron.

Today, 73% of black babies are born out of wedlock. Seventy three percent.

And people still claim that the solution is to hand over more cash to young single moms.

Use my taxes to fund free daycare centers so that single moms can go to school during the day so they can get a job. You don't just give them cash for doing nothing.

According to Obama and the media, that view makes me a racist hatemonger.

15 or so years Raider Ronnie. If we don't right the ship by then, we'll hit he iceberg and the ship will right itself. The longer we wait, the more severe the fix will need to be.

Actuaries have been predicting this since the baby boomers were 10 years old. This is the most forseeable, preventable crisis we have ever faced, and we did nothing to stop it. It's like we're standing on railroad tracks, watching a slow-speed train approach for 50 years, and we couldn't convince ourselves to simply step off the track. So instead, we'll get hit and deal with that. But history (and common sense) will show it would have been a whole lot easier to just step off the track.

In the meantime, put your money in cash and gold. When the inevitable happens, put it back in stocks, and make a fortune.

QUOTE=Jim in CT;970517]

We have 40 years of empirical evidence to see what happens when you throw money at the problem of poverty. Often, poor people are not poor because of a lack of money, they are poor because of behavioral issues. Those issues may not be solved, and indeed may be exacerbated, when you hand those people a check.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE]

Dollars thrown at the problem never did or never will solve this problem.
The answer is education, values and morals.
Until the parents and elders take an interest and take part in their kids education, teach the values and morals which lead to self esteem and pride in work, it will never be solved.
The ONLY thing free stuff does is buy votes and promote dependence. Anybody who believes differntly has their head in the sand.

You don't counter this simply by artificially increasing supply.

The market cannot artificially increase supply. It costs real money to increase supply. That's why supply usually follows demand. Government, on the other hand, can artificially increase the demand for supply by increasing the stock of money too fast. This usually results in inflation. Too often, government uses inflation as a means to check somewhat the growth of debt interest and as a means to expand its size by spending for special interests and programs.

Government spending is part of GDP after all and programs to help the unemployed or poor do go right back into the economy. If you cut spending too fast you risk weakening the foundation while you remodel the upstairs.

-spence

Government spending as part of GDP does not include transfer payments such as social security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc. Beneficiaries of transfer payments are not currently producing anything for the payment so there is no product (other than a voting constituancy for government expansion).

Government spending on actual products that it needs to operate, and on constitutionally based services are, in the best of circumstances, paid for by taxes. These may be considered a part of GDP, but they are also a cost to the private portion of GDP and so don't actually increase it. At best, its a wash. If the private sector had to provide those services, that cost would be added to the GDP just as is the government's cost added, and the government's contribution to GDP would be replaced by the private sector. The problem arises when the government goes beyond that for which it was instituted and decides for all of us on what and how and how much it will spend money.

And when it takes on more and more responsibilities that should be left to the private sector, it demands more and more of the private sector's money to spend in ways that it wishes and shrinks what is left for the private sector to spend in ways that will sustain it and let it grow. And when it has to resort to means beyond taxation when the tax burden begins to seriously harm the private economy, it either borrows or prints money. The printing of money too quickly or beyond the private sector's means to supply causes inflation and a growth of the national debt. And that makes the use of GDP (gross national product) rather than GNI (gross national income) a more attractive way for government to hide the damage it creates by requiring larger amounts of income that will have to go into paying off larger debt which DECREASES the gross national income (GNI).

GDP that results from monetary pumping, government "stimulus," which increases the supply of money is not "real" economic growth. It is an artificial growth or rise in the GDP which causes, or is, inflationary growth which is a false increase in the wealth of a nation since it does not increase overall purchasing power. Further it causes social harm by distorting the incentive component of an economy, and creates, rather than new "products," by-products--unmotivated citizens who are given a nominal "income" without having to produce or work specifically for that income. These citizens are in fact the product purchased by government to increase its "wealth"--its size and power.

Transfer payments aren't included just so you don't count the same money twice. Just because the recipients don't produce they certainly do still consume.

I don't think anyone intended the Stimulus to generate organic growth, rather it's a stabilization mechanism to prevent lasting damage and to this purpose I think it was successful.

The rest of it just comes down to a belief in Keynes or not.

-spence

Transfer payments aren't included just so you don't count the same money twice. Just because the recipients don't produce they certainly do still consume.

That they consume doesn't mean they are adding something to the economy or to GDP. The transferred money just allows different recipients than those from whom it was taken to use it for consumption. There is no added money to be spent, just different consumers spending the transferred amount. The Keynesian multiplyer effect, in my opinion, is bogus. Postulating that as the same money is spent and respent a number of times, each instant adds to the national income so that, $100, for instance, initially spent effectively becomes say $300 after a number of transactions doesn't take into account that every time a given consumer spends it, it is no longer in his possession. It is still $100, moving down the line, shrinking by factors such as taxing and saving. No extra money has been added to the gross national income. Every transaction expands the income of one party, but contracts that of the other. No net gain is accrued. And contrary to your assertion, according to Keynes, the same money IS not only counted twice, but more so. So there is no addition to GDP, therefor no reason to add it to GDP.

On the other hand, if government spends borrowed money rather than tax money to fund its "programs," that is new money which does add to GDP. Unfortunately, it also adds to the debt load and eventually contracts GDP to pay for interest, which money comes from more taxation, which shrinks the private sector addition to GDP (making it a wash monetarily but contracting the ability of the private sector to expand). Or it borrows more to pay for debt thus raising the national debt. Apparently, the "Keynesian" economists see some magic formula in all this that will solve itself--they reject the "invisible hand" of classical economics, and replace it with the magic hand of Keynesianism.

Can the government aid the market in expanding? Absolutely. A sort of multiplyer effect can work not by merely circulating the same existing money supply, but by multiplying/adding to it to meet the demand of a larger population of consumers for MORE circulating money, not just the same limited supply that just changes hands. If that supply meets the demand, markets can organically expand. If too much money is "printed" that will exceed the need for expansion creating excess money, ergo inflation.

I don't think anyone intended the Stimulus to generate organic growth, rather it's a stabilization mechanism to prevent lasting damage and to this purpose I think it was successful.

Lasting damage to whom? Was the expansion of the already untenable national debt a lasting damage? And how can we tell so soon whether the entire cycle of damage is lasting? And what would be more financially difficult to correct, bank failure or government failure? Or have we reached a point big government and big business and big banks are so interconnected that they are indistinguishable? Is this state of affairs a lasting damage to a free market?

The rest of it just comes down to a belief in Keynes or not.

-spence

Which Keynes? The New Keynesianism, or the Neo-Keynesianism, or Post Keynesianism? It keeps changing from the original Keynesianism and often merging with other economic isms so that many claim that even Keynes would not agree with it. Apparently, the Keynesians have not got it quite right yet. Still evolving to new forms. No doubt they will eventually solve the riddle, and economic heaven will have arrived.

the entire premise of the argument of government transfers as economic stimulus is absurd and the only reason that Spence can even attempt the claim is be cause he and the study view reduced taxation and entitlements as essentially the same=grace and generosity granted by governement, it(he) ignores the fact that taxes have to be collected(at a cost), entitlement payments have to be delivered(at a cost) and in many cases those dollars are being borrowed(at an even greater cost)....I've read estimates that for every tax dollar collected the end user under welfare, and I assume the other transfers as well, see about 30 cents of that dollar.....and of course, reducing taxation and regulation does nothing for the expansion of government and the proliferation of the entitlement state

loved this..."Just because the recipients don't produce they certainly do still consume.".....yes, it's becoming more and more the case isn't it?

the entire premise of the argument of government transfers as economic stimulus is absurd.....and of course, reducing taxation and regulation does nothing for the expansion of government and the proliferation of the entitlement state

loved this..."Just because the recipients don't produce they certainly do still consume.".....yes, it's becoming more and more the case isn't it?

Yes, and the "trajectory" of so-called Keynesian economics and its linchpin deficit spending is, inadvertantly, toward the growth of centralized government which, in turn, has its own inescapable
"lynch"pin--the entitlement welfare state fueled by government transfer of wealth either through taxation, borrowing, or "stimulus."

Simply transferring, through taxation, money from those who produce, to those who do not, introduces one-sided transactions when the non-producing recipients of transferred money consume. They are recieving a necessary or desirable commodity or service and are returning some of the money that they have recieved from the producers. In other words, the producers are selling the product and giving it to the non-producer after they have, in essence, bought it back with their own money. For money to have value it must be a medium of exchange that represents actual work or production, and it is that actual work or production that is being traded, as part of the national economy, for the goods which it purchases. That is the essence of trade that gives value to both buyer and seller. That is the foundation of a free market.

But wait--the gifted money still can be used by the seller to buy other goods or to invest. Yes, but on the whole, if the money was first confiscated from the market economy, then a return of that money to the market which has expended more money to produce the gift, the market has shrunk by the value of the gift. Not to mention, as ScottW has pointed out, there is even more unrequited money that is transferred from the market to government to administer the distribution of gifts.

Now, you might say, there are always those who truly need, and society must find ways to help them. Except in the most merciless societies, ways have always been found. When a government goes beyond transferring to true need, and further, goes beyond the power granted to it by the people to make transfers, that is the beginning of, at least, an economic tyranny.

It stands to reason that transfers that go beyond true need become disincentives for recievers to produce. The adage which says that the more something is rewarded, the more of it that you get, or the more you punish something the less of it you get applies. The more that people become "disabled" by charity which replaces what they could earn, the larger becomes the dependant or semi-dependant "class." And the more the producers must sell their goods for money that is merely a return of that which was confiscated from them the less producers you get.

A phenomenon (which those who rail against the "system" and demand more "equity") occurs which is as the producing class shrinks, and the recieving class grows, the greater the disparity of wealth distribution becomes. In order for the producing class to survive, it has to recoup more for its products to make up for the double loss of income lost firstly through taxation and then loss of income that would have been gained had they received value for the goods they give away for a return of some of that money. Real wealth is earned by fewer producers.

Of course, there has to be collusion between the big producers and the government to maintain the process. Only so much can be bled from them, so government must "support" them with "bailouts," subsidies, tax breaks, stimulus, and so on. And yet it must also feed the "needs" of the growing dependent class. So taxation is not the only visible means of transfer. Government must resort to "borrowing" to pay for the growing dependant class, and increasing the money supply (another way of borrowing) to support the shrinking producing class. There is obviously not enough "real" money (that which represents actual labor or production) to sustain the system. So money of no value is infused and combines with real money to support the economic house of cards. The government takes on unsustainable debt through a cycle from which it cannot escape. And the shrinking economy, if it is at all to be "real," a producer of actual wealth, must somehow pay for that debt.

All of the above is a result of government intervention beyond that which is required of it to support a free market. It creates the problems for which it creates the solutions from which more problems arise. And so on. In the end, the government is "lynched"--hoisted by its own petard. And we get hung out to dry along with it. The only solution is to either get free of such government or totally acquiesce to it.