The PLAN

[scottw]

this is pretty good....

Among the Intellectualoids
Devil's Dictionary, Obama Edition
By Ross Kaminsky on 9.9.11 @ 6:08AM

Why, you may ask, are you publishing a dictionary to help decode President Obama's latest "jobs speech" the night after he gave it? The answer is based on the results of a poll by Kaminsky & Associates (polling methodology not disclosed) which asked, "When will you watch Barack Obama​'s latest 'jobs speech'?" The results were as follows:

While he is giving it: 4%
Recording it to watch later: 19%
Never: 59%
Speech? What speech?: 18%

In other words, while more than three quarters of the population has either no interest in or knowledge of the speech, nearly five times as many people will watch/listen to the speech after having an opportunity to access this reference material as will watch it live. It is worth noting, as one digs into the details of the poll results (details not available to the public, of course) that of those who said they will be watching Obama's speech while he is giving it, 61% were members of Congress, 13% were columnists and television pundits, 9% were labor union leaders, and 15% changed their answers after learning that the first game of the NFL season began later the same evening.

The Devil's Dictionary, Obama Speech Edition

Abraham Lincoln: Not the founder of the Republican Party.

Basic protection(s): Any regulation(s) that Barack Obama believes will reduce the ability of financial, medical, or fossil fuel companies to earn a profit, especially any regulation based on the Progressive view that individual Americans are too stupid to be allowed to make our own decisions in the most important areas of our daily lives. Also, any regulation that strengthens the power of unions.

Different theory: Economic policy views supported by history, evidence, and research by Barack Obama's own (former) top economic advisor, but not supported by Barack Obama.

Doing nothing: If referencing a Republican-controlled chamber of Congress, not giving the president at least 90% of what he wants even while passing legislation. Not applicable to a Democrat-controlled chamber of Congress, even if not passing any legislation.

Fair shake: The additional amount of money the government can extract from society's most successful by turning success into a vice and lack of success into a virtue; similar to shakedown.

Fair share: More than you pay in taxes now, especially if you are in the top 1% of earners who already pay more in income taxes than the bottom 95% of taxpayers and who pay nearly twice as much as a share of taxes than they earn as a share of national income.

Fairness: A never-reached situation in which the "rich" are paying their Fair share and Warren Buffet​t is happy.

Help: Buy one group of Americans' votes with money earned by those who pay most federal income taxes by giving the latter group a Fair shake.

Jolt: A policy dramatic enough to increase Barack Obama's poll numbers. A cola I drank in college.

Listen to every new proposal: Tailor a bill based on "suggestions" from the head of the AFL-CIO, SEIU, or AFSCME; Suggestions from Republicans responded to with "I won."

Most fortunate: Hardest working, smartest, most entrepreneurial, most responsible for job creation, paying more than others in taxes, or being part of any other such category so deserving of income confiscation, over-regulation, union domination, or any other punishment the Obama Administration can implement over Republican opposition which is based on Rigid ideas.

Nothing controversial: Highly controversial.

Paid for: Funded by increasing Fairness. Spending increases and Fair Shakes implemented now with the net deficit theoretically funded by a promise of spending reductions later.

Payroll tax cut: A temporary benefit to some working Americans and businesses to be Paid for by creating a permanent penalty on other working Americans and businesses.

Political crisis: See "Urgent time for our country."

Right now: When to pass a "jobs bill," in which there is Nothing controversial, because we are in an Urgent time for our country.

Rigid idea: A position based on reading the plain text of the Constitution and thus not worthy of serious consideration, especially if it impedes Fairness or the implementation of Basic protections.

Sincerely believe: If referring to a Democrat, believe sincerely. If referring to a Republican, must be stupid or crazy to believe.

Tax loopholes; tax breaks: Advantages in the tax code that go to companies or people who do not share President Obama's goal of Fairness and who do not contribute enough to Democratic campaigns and thus must be shifted to the favor of those who do.

Urgent time for our country: A period during which Barack Obama's poll numbers are falling, causing him to fear that he will lose re-election and therefore that oceans may start to rise again.

[UserRemoved]

Sounds like what his TelePrompTer reads
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Your company might not hire anyone or forecast on this alone, but my friend who has a small (5 employees) business (Metal refining) might decide to hire someone and expand his production if there is some incentive.

if he had a need to expand his production, he would already be hiring...if he isn't hiring it is because there is no need to expand his production, no increased demand and it makes no sense to add employees, if he gets a tax credit to add employees that really aren't needed because the demand isn't there he's stuck with the overall cost of new hires, bad business model...do you think a tax credit to add employees is magically going to increase demand to support the expense of these new employees? maybe we need a purchasing tax credit for his buyers to purchase more to increase his demand to support the new employees that he will add as a result of the hiring tax credit????

you don't hire unless there is work to do...the left views a "job" as an entitlement and a guarantee with perks that someone is just supposed to provide for you regardless of whether or not you are really needed(see any union dominated workplace) and continue to provide for you even after you stop working....having actual work to do-that's the incentive to hire...not a tax credit from the federal goverment.......there's nothing that govenment can do to "make" companies hire more people....


NY Times
Employers Say Jobs Plan Won’t Lead to Hiring Spur
Published: Saturday, 10 Sep 2011
Motoko Rich


The dismal state of the economy is the main reason many companies are reluctant to hire workers, and few executives are saying that President Obama’s jobs plan — while welcomed — will change their minds any time soon.

That sentiment was echoed across numerous industries by executives in companies big and small on Friday, underscoring the challenge for the Obama administration as it tries to encourage hiring and perk up the moribund economy.

[striperman36]

No hiring but record profits, just wonderful,

[scottw]

Originally Posted by striperman36

No hiring but record profits, just wonderful,

NYT
This breakneck pace can be partly attributed to strong productivity growth — which means companies have been able to make more with less — as well as the fact that some of the profits of American companies come from abroad. Economic conditions in the United States may still be sluggish, but many emerging markets like India and China are expanding rapidly.

again, why would you hire employees that you don't need? in any business???

if you can fill current demands with X number of employees...is a tax credit going to incentivize you to increase your number of employees to X+10 to fill the same demand????? or are you assuming that demand automatically increases with an increase in employees.....or is hiring just the patriotic thing to do?

[striperman36]

Exactly, fortunately there'll always be a demand for IT people, even if they pay significantly less for more hours.

[striperman36]

#^&#^&#^&#^& pays

New York City Sewer Worker Makes $772,000 -- In One Year - Careers Articles


"You can't hire skilled trade people to do the jobs ... and then string them out for eight or 13 years without a pay increase and then not expect to see exorbitant back-pay numbers," he said.

ha!

[scottw]

Originally Posted by striperman36

#^&#^&#^&#^& pays

New York City Sewer Worker Makes $772,000 -- In One Year - Careers Articles


"You can't hire skilled trade people to do the jobs ... and then string them out for eight or 13 years without a pay increase and then not expect to see exorbitant back-pay numbers," he said.

ha!

Six other senior DEP workers made more than $700,000, while 13 made around $600,000. Another 47 earned about $400,000 to $500,000.

Local 1320 President James Tucciarelli told the News the city has no one to blame but itself for the huge payouts."



are you trying to point out that government/unions don't need tax breaks to hire and overpay people that they don't need?........

[striperman36]

No I am not doing that. Just amazed at the statement, I'd love back pay for years without pay increases, anybody on this board would

[scottw]

Originally Posted by striperman36

No I am not doing that. Just amazed at the statement, I'd love back pay for years without pay increases, anybody on this board would

amazed at the statement???...union thugs are making some really amazing statements lately...haven't you been listening???...I think there was a little hostage situation on the west coast the other day..http://news.yahoo.com/longshoremen-s...144921214.html

.truly amazing I think a top union thug was a special guest of our president the other night...he's said some "amazing things"

not sure how this relates to tax incentivized hiring

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

NYT
This breakneck pace can be partly attributed to strong productivity growth — which means companies have been able to make more with less — as well as the fact that some of the profits of American companies come from abroad. Economic conditions in the United States may still be sluggish, but many emerging markets like India and China are expanding rapidly.

again, why would you hire employees that you don't need? in any business???

if you can fill current demands with X number of employees...is a tax credit going to incentivize you to increase your number of employees to X+10 to fill the same demand????? or are you assuming that demand automatically increases with an increase in employees.....or is hiring just the patriotic thing to do?

It's an incentive to increase innovative behavior.

Basically, you can't automate everything and usually automation requires an existing and proven process.

If I'm trying to invent a new product or revolutionary manufacturing process the additional labor burden required is a large part of the overall investment. If the investment costs are too high relative to the benefits I won't take the risk.

Many companies today are still profitable because they've cut their cost structures to the bone, but their people don't have the bandwidth for anything other than short-term profit motivated work. Sure, they can produce today's product more efficiently, but are they prepared to compete 5 or 10 years down the road?

The bottom line is that people are the lifeblood of any innovative organization.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

It's an incentive to increase innovative behavior. that is hilarious

The bottom line is that people are the lifeblood of any innovative organization.

-spence

if that were true ....government would be incredibly innovative, efficient, productive and cost effective with all of those people

there seem to be plenty of government chosen "innovative" exploits recently that were subsidized with "incentives to increase innovation" and subsequently couldn't find demand(Volt) or couldn't compete in the marketplace(Solyndra)....

business will innovate just fine on their own and as they see fit...don't need Obaba giving pointers....

[spence]

Originally Posted by striperman36

Exactly, fortunately there'll always be a demand for IT people, even if they pay significantly less for more hours.

Your biggest fear should be the Cloud.

With defense spending certainly to decline, program rationalization will be a very hot topic on the floor of Congress. IT will be in the cross hairs as contractors try to shift their spend towards retaining specialized talent critical to rapid project completion.

Be thankful for that little bit of US Government regulatory oppression called ITAR. It's perhaps your trump card to not get outsourced!

-spence

[striperman36]

no DoD 8510 is the trump card.

Been doing cloud since 2006 or even early when it was called ASP's in 96. Also doing large private clouds with rapid provisioning, still very complicated to set up, have 2 large engagements underway, one DoD the other Agency.

It's more complicated than you think it is, it's not all pre-built. You gotta get to it (the cloud) and requires (or should) more security than private cloud.
Also you have to transition stuff (apps, data, users, management)

Nice buzz word but totally bogus when it comes to some of the implied benefits unless done right.

[spence]

Originally Posted by striperman36

no DoD 8510 is the trump card.

Same issue, certification will be a bitch. I think ITAR has a lot more visibility in millions of dollars of fines.

Been doing cloud since 2006 or even early when it was called ASP's in 96. Also doing large private clouds with rapid provisioning, still very complicated to set up, have 2 large engagements underway, one DoD the other Agency.

It's more complicated than you think it is, it's not all pre-built. You gotta get to it (the cloud) and requires (or should) more security than private cloud.
Also you have to transition stuff (apps, data, users, management)

Nice buzz word but totally bogus when it comes to some of the implied benefits unless done right.

Improved network latency and stability is allowing better private cloud performance, but the commercialization of public Cloud apps and increasingly open applications is the game changer we're just getting into. For the heavier applications, yes, it's still a lot of hype, but already CIO's are starting to drink the Kool Aid.

Next time you're over for beers we should draft a few talking points I can use to help with these conversations. I've got the high-level pitch but you can give me some specifics.

-spence

[striperman36]

I have all the certifications and ts cissp is next
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

if that were true ....government would be incredibly innovative, efficient, productive and cost effective with all of those people

The majority of Government jobs are transactional.

there seem to be plenty of government chosen "innovative" exploits recently that were subsidized with "incentives to increase innovation" and subsequently couldn't find demand(Volt) or couldn't compete in the marketplace(Solyndra)....

These are different scenarios.

business will innovate just fine on their own and as they see fit...don't need Obaba giving pointers....

As usual you're pretty much missing the point completely. This isn't a situation where the government is dictating anything, just helping to defray a little risk as an incentive.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The majority of Government jobs are transactional.
the majority are unnecessary and we should reduce the number of government transactions
These are different scenarios.
not really, both are examples of companies that with much government fanfare sought to "innovate" through government "encouragement" thinking that "innovation" would result in a successful business venture despite the lack of demand in one case and any ability to compete in the other....all hype....then.... all disappointment.....Like Obama

As usual you're pretty much missing the point completely. This isn't a situation where the government is dictating anything, just helping to defray a little risk as an incentive.

-spence

this is a situation where Obama has nothing left to regurgitate so he thinks that this will be some solution to the lack of hiring and later he can complain that companies didn't take advantage of his benevolence when they don't take advantage of what is actually a really bad idea...

this is Obama's version of 100,000 cops on the streets

Kudlow - Businesses like to look ahead at least three to five years for their employment planning. And they’re already worried about the tax and regulatory mandate costs of Obamacare, which has become a great deterrent to job creation. But nobody makes clear business decisions based on temporary one-year tax cuts. That’s not the way business works.


see above
NY Times
Employers Say Jobs Plan Won’t Lead to Hiring Spur

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by spence

Same issue, certification will be a bitch. I think ITAR has a lot more visibility in millions of dollars of fines.


Improved network latency and stability is allowing better private cloud performance, but the commercialization of public Cloud apps and increasingly open applications is the game changer we're just getting into. For the heavier applications, yes, it's still a lot of hype, but already CIO's are starting to drink the Kool Aid.

Next time you're over for beers we should draft a few talking points I can use to help with these conversations. I've got the high-level pitch but you can give me some specifics.

-spence

This is sooo over, it's a myth

[spence]

Originally Posted by striperman36

This is sooo over, it's a myth

What's a myth?

-spence

[striperman36]

90 pct of the cloud

[UserRemoved1]

That O'bama has a plan

Originally Posted by spence

What's a myth?

-spence

[striperman36]

Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&

That O'bama has a plan

That anyone in DC has a friggin care about the populous of the United States of America. They should all go spend six years with Sal at club Fed

[UserRemoved1]

News Headlines

There's your FIRST indication that $447 BILLION is a WASTE OF TIME.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

Kudlow - Businesses like to look ahead at least three to five years for their employment planning. And they’re already worried about the tax and regulatory mandate costs of Obamacare, which has become a great deterrent to job creation. ]

The unknown effect of Obamacre is one of the biggest reasons for not hiring
by small companies. No one has a clue as to the cost to them or how it will be paid for.

How is that ,what it is 5 or 500 billion, savings from fraud in Medicare and Medicaid
coming along???

[UserRemoved1]

pass this sherlock

Need-to-Know Video

[RIJIMMY]

Kudlow - Businesses like to look ahead at least three to five years for their employment planning. And they’re already worried about the tax and regulatory mandate costs of Obamacare, which has become a great deterrent to job creation. But nobody makes clear business decisions based on temporary one-year tax cuts. That’s not the way business works.

exactly what I said.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by striperman36

I have all the certifications and ts cissp is next

Take a look at these guys if you already haven't....I went through them for mine and they do a pretty good job of teaching the subject matter.

(ISC)² - Official CISSP

Not like a microsoft bootcamp.....where they basically teach you the test.

These guys basically immerse you for the entire week in the material and then you test out on Sunday.

I enjoyed this class just because it was a different "view" of Security......kind of that 3000 foot view of overall security....makes you think like an upper level manager

There success rate was really good with the people in my office....6 out of 7 of us passed the test 1st time.

not gonna lie though....the test is a Mutha Eff'er

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Kudlow - Businesses like to look ahead at least three to five years for their employment planning. And they’re already worried about the tax and regulatory mandate costs of Obamacare, which has become a great deterrent to job creation. But nobody makes clear business decisions based on temporary one-year tax cuts. That’s not the way business works.

exactly what I said.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Bank of America said Monday that it plans to eliminate 30,000 jobs as part of a plan to save $5 billion.

The announcement came after Chief Executive Brian Moynihan outlined the bank's strategy at an investor conference in New York.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Bank of America said Monday that it plans to eliminate 30,000 jobs as part of a plan to save $5 billion.

The announcement came after Chief Executive Brian Moynihan outlined the bank's strategy at an investor conference in New York.

No worries , Obama's plan will recreate those missing 30k jobs for just a little over 400 billion