Bet you're sorry you voted for Obama now

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Obama must get serious about new job creation and economic growth. The economy wont come roaring back until investors are confident they can take risks investing in businesses again. But that confidence level is threatened by uncertainty over the tax treatment of investments. Here's why. pres. Bush signed into law a dividend-tax cut in 2003, which expires this year. It's up to Congress and the President to extend it, but his progressive allies would like to see the tax cut expire to force investors to pay for new social programs. Obama could help the economy by extending this and other expiring tax cuts. Better yet, he could push for bipartisan tax reform that would simplify the tax code radically, broadent eh tax base and promote a gusher of new economic activity and risk taking. America's entrepreneurs would respond, hiring would jump, and the economic engine would kick into higher gear. That's change you can believe in. Got Hope? Nick Schultz (American enterprise institute)

Typical republican/neocon response to everything: give tax cuts to the rich. All that does is make the rich richer. If it worked, the unemployment wouldn't have continued to rise during the eight years of the bush administration. AND IT DID. Additionally, the tax cuts were not paid for and have added HUGELY to the deficit. So, when it's convenient we suddenly don't care about the deficits?? Typical hypocrisy :thumbup:

The above op-ed piece is BS!!!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years

Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers

Updated June 28, 2010

Related Areas of Research

• 
  
  • 
    

Some critics continue to assert that President George W. Bush’s policies bear little responsibility for the deficits the nation faces over the coming decade — that, instead, the new policies of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress are to blame. Most recently, a Heritage Foundation paper downplayed the role of Bush-era policies (for more on that paper, see p. 4). Nevertheless, the fact remains: Together with the economic downturn, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq explain virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years (see Figure 1).

The deficit for fiscal year 2009 was $1.4 trillion and, at nearly 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was the largest deficit relative to the size of the economy since the end of World War II. If current policies are continued without changes, deficits will likely approach those figures in 2010 and remain near $1 trillion a year for the next decade.

Look at the dark orange part - that is what bush's tax cuts to the rich added to the deficit. The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.

While President Obama inherited a dismal fiscal legacy, that does not diminish his responsibility to propose policies to address our fiscal imbalance and put the weight of his office behind them. Although policymakers should not tighten fiscal policy in the near term while the economy remains fragile, they and the nation at large must come to grips with the nation’s long-term deficit problem. But we should not mistake the causes of our predicament.

Bush Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook

Some commentators blame recent legislation — the stimulus bill and the financial rescues — for today’s record deficits. Yet those costs pale next to other policies enacted since 2001 that have swollen the deficit. Those other policies may be less conspicuous now, because many were enacted years ago and they have long since been absorbed into CBO’s and other organizations’ budget projections.

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including the associated debt-service costs. [6] (The prescription drug benefit enacted in 2003 accounts for further substantial increases in deficits and debt, which we are unable to quantify due to data limitations.) These impacts easily dwarf the stimulus and financial rescues. Furthermore, unlike those temporary costs, these inherited policies (especially the tax cuts and the drug benefit) do not fade away as the economy recovers (see Figure 1).

Without the economic downturn and the fiscal policies of the previous Administration, the budget would be roughly in balance over the next decade. That would have put the nation on a much sounder footing to address the demographic challenges and the cost pressures in health care that darken the long-run fiscal outlook.[7]

Edited July 6, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Obama must get serious about new job creation and economic growth. The economy wont come roaring back until investors are confident they can take risks investing in businesses again. But that confidence level is threatened by uncertainty over the tax treatment of investments. Here's why. pres. Bush signed into law a dividend-tax cut in 2003, which expires this year. It's up to Congress and the President to extend it, but his progressive allies would like to see the tax cut expire to force investors to pay for new social programs. Obama could help the economy by extending this and other expiring tax cuts. Better yet, he could push for bipartisan tax reform that would simplify the tax code radically, broadent eh tax base and promote a gusher of new economic activity and risk taking. America's entrepreneurs would respond, hiring would jump, and the economic engine would kick into higher gear. That's change you can believe in. Got Hope? Nick Schultz (American enterprise institute)

Nice try but when bush took office unemployment was 4%- when he left office it was 8.1%, so his tax cuts caused unemployment to double. So, try again!!!

the republican agenda: Leave no millionaire behind.

[MsMackieLee 0]

Obama must get serious about new job creation and economic growth. The economy wont come roaring back until investors are confident they can take risks investing in businesses again. But that confidence level is threatened by uncertainty over the tax treatment of investments. Here's why. pres. Bush signed into law a dividend-tax cut in 2003, which expires this year. It's up to Congress and the President to extend it, but his progressive allies would like to see the tax cut expire to force investors to pay for new social programs. Obama could help the economy by extending this and other expiring tax cuts. Better yet, he could push for bipartisan tax reform that would simplify the tax code radically, broadent eh tax base and promote a gusher of new economic activity and risk taking. America's entrepreneurs would respond, hiring would jump, and the economic engine would kick into higher gear. That's change you can believe in. Got Hope? Nick Schultz (American enterprise institute)

If prostitution and marijuana are made legal...then I got hope. The poor will get rich and the rich will die happy.

[bigtruk_us 56]

If the numbers are true at the gbo or gao.we the people as a whole cannot support free healthcare for everyone.there is only so much of the money to go around.way too massive of a program.if I wish everyone could have free healthcare?yes id go for it.no matter what party you support.we have to be realistic.come down to earth.we dont need anymore programs.its like the saftey belt law.yes and no it can save lives.but by the nature of us being humans.eventually someone is going to die.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

If the numbers are true at the gbo or gao.we the people as a whole cannot support free healthcare for everyone.there is only so much of the money to go around.way too massive of a program.if I wish everyone could have free healthcare?yes id go for it.no matter what party you support.we have to be realistic.come down to earth.we dont need anymore programs.its like the saftey belt law.yes and no it can save lives.but by the nature of us being humans.eventually someone is going to die.

The healthcare reform bill that passed does not provide free healthcare beyond those who qualify for Medicaid, which has been around since the 1960's. The uninsured will be able to buy insurance now because of government subsidies, based on income. Those who have lost their insurance due to unemployment will be able to do also. Insurance companies will no longer be able to deny or drop someone due to illness or pre-existing condition. But people will be paying premiums for this insurance, it is not free.

States are getting subsidies to help create a high risk pool for those who have been denied insurance due to a pre-existing condition until that part of the bill kicks in. Senior citizens will be getting checks to help pay for the donut hole in their prescription plan. And children up to the age of 26 will be allowed to stay on their parents healthcare plan.

This is paid for by a tax on insurance companies that provide cadillac insurance plans and by getting rid of waste, fraud and duplication in the medicare program.

The cost of mandating installing and using seatbelts pales in comparison to the cost of medical care for those injured from not wearing one. And we all bear that cost.

[pattygreen 5]

The Chris Dood (dem) Re4cession is 31 months old and after trillions in deficit spending by the Obama administration, the economy is still shedding jobs, with nonfarm payroll losing 125,000 last month alone. (However, the federal government continued its hiring spree, adding 12,000 non-Census employees.)

[pattygreen 5]

The unemployment rate declined from 9.7 in may to 9.5% simply because more than 600,000 jobless Americans gave up the ghost; had they continued their futile search for work, the rate would have been closer to 10.5%.

[pattygreen 5]

Dividing the actual number of unemployed, 25.3 million, by the actual total workforce, 138.7 million, produces a real jobless rate of 18.2%. Among the other 81.8%, average hours worked and hourly earnings declined in June.

The $862 billion dollar stimulus was supposed to create 4 million jobs, but for the most part only immunized, unionized government employees from the effects of the recession.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Dividing the actual number of unemployed, 25.3 million, by the actual total workforce, 138.7 million, produces a real jobless rate of 18.2%. Among the other 81.8%, average hours worked and hourly earnings declined in June.

The $862 billion dollar stimulus was supposed to create 4 million jobs, but for the most part only immunized, unionized government employees from the effects of the recession.

Under the bush administration unemployment went from 4% to 8.1% due to his failed economic policies.

Under the bush administration, wall street de-regulation and their reckless, greedy and arrogant regard for our money led to the near collapse of our economy.

Under the bush administration, termed the "lost decade" because we lost 8 million jobs, the value of our home, retirement and purchasing power (paychecks) declined and were lost.

Under the bush regime, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month.

ALL OF THIS IS A RESULT OF THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA. WE KNOW HOW THIS STORY TURNS OUT - SO WHY WOULD ANY THINKING, INTELLIGENT PERSON WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS?

Now, under the Obama administration we have had 6 months of positive job growth. A job, is a job, is a job. Those that have one pay taxes and buy things and stimulate the economy.

Under the Obama administration we now have long overdue health insurance regulations and 32 million uninsured will now be covered. Lives will be saved.

Under the Obama administration, we are going to have financial reform, something else that is long overdue.

AND WHAT IS IT THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TO OFFER?

HERE IT IS:___________________________________.

[pattygreen 5]

A job, is a job, is a job.

NO!!! A job is NOT a job is a job!! GOVERNMENT employees are being paid by all of us. Those jobs suck for us. Those jobs are on our payroll for life. Private sector jobs are what counts. None of us have to pay for a private sector job except for his own personal employer. The federal government spends $1,937,500,000 per work hour. That's about half a million per second! Adding more government jobs to the payroll is not the answer to helping the economy. Yes, it helps that one individual who was out of work, but the millions that it effects through tax increases to continue to forever pay his salary, it hurts. That doesn't help the economy. It only puts a burden on the rest of us to pay for his weekly paycheck. Multiply that by many thousands on the payroll, and we have nothing left to give.

[pattygreen 5]

The number of federal jobs is soon to outnumber the private sector jobs that pay their salaries. Then what will the gov. do?

[pattygreen 5]

by the end of this month, when joblessness will increase when another 339,000 temporary Census employees will hit the bricks, the recession will have lasted twice as long as the 1981-82 recession, which had been the longest since World War II. The Chris Dodd Recession already is three times longer than the average one since 1945. And the National Bureau of Economic Research, the arbiter of recessions, is reluctant to call the end of this one because most economic indicators are pointing down, a consequence of the administration's fixation on saving unionized government jobs at the ex- pense of private-sector job creation.

Today, businesses are afraid to hire because they fear a double-dip recession and are concerned about how they will pay for all the socialism Congress and the White House have been churning out. Until businesses begin hiring, the economy won't grow. Moreover, consumers are afraid to spend, let alone make long-term financial commitments, because of their severe job insecurity and what portends to be the largest tax increase in U.S. history with the Jan. 1 expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which pulled the country out of the last recession. Until consumers' fears are assuaged, the economy won't grow and business won't hire.

Under Mr. Obama, the national debt has exploded to more than 60 percent of the value of all the goods and services the economy produces. The rate is 56 percent in Spain, where the debt-ridden government and economy are convulsing. Without an immediate and drastic course change, the United States will reach 109 percent by 2025, according to the latest Congressional Budget Office underestimate; a 124 percent rate has Greece teetering on insolvency. This is not the right direction; it's the left direction, and the opposite direction European governments are taking now that they've figured out the promise of socialism is a big fat lie.

[pattygreen 5]

Proof Positive Obama's Spending Stimulus a Wash

WASHINGTON -- There are well-grounded economic reasons that President Obama's spending stimulus was doomed to fail from the beginning. Foremost, it lacked serious incentives to spur capital investment, the mother's milk of new business formation and job creation. And it lacked sustainability. When the money runs out, as it has now, the stimulus stops.

The best example of this was the $6,500 to $8,000 homebuyer tax credit that the government was dishing out to boost home sales. The tax credit expired April 30. Existing home sales fell 30 percent in May, double what forecasters expected.

"The message is clear," said Washington Post economic analyst Frank Ahrens. "The tepid housing recovery we've seen over the past year was supported by the government handouts, not market demand."

In this sense, Obama and the Democrats were running a kind of government spending Ponzi scheme, not unlike the scam that Bernie Madoff perpetrated on his victims. As long as the money continued to dish out returns, people seemed to benefit. But when the money ran out, so did the payments and its purported long-term benefits. We saw that happen to the aborted "Cash for Clunkers" program that left taxpayers holding the bag to the tune of $3 billion.

In a deeper sense, most of the $800 billion Democrats stuffed into their so-called economic stimulus and jobs bill went into federal and state government agencies and programs. There were few federal departments and agencies that did not get a chunk of this money to fatten their budgets, with very little, if any, effect on economic growth.

In other words, Obama's big spending stimulus was a fraud from the beginning. We see that in the 125,000 jobs that were lost in June. We see it in the embarrassingly anemic 83,000 jobs created in the private sector last month. We see it in weaker consumer spending, growing at half the pace recorded in the early recovery from the 1981-82 recession.

And we certainly saw it in the wave of pessimism in the financial markets last week. The Dow was down by 10 percent. The broader S&P 500 and the tech-heavy Nasdaq were down by more than 12 percent -- sacking the pensions and retirement savings of millions of ordinary hardworking Americans.

Some readers of this column may recall that early in 2009, I wrote several columns about the inherent weakness of Obama's stimulus plan, particularly its public-works, pump-priming, spending programs. Economists, including some of Obama's own economic advisers in the campaign, had written scholarly papers questioning the spending stimulus plan's effectiveness and long-term sustainability.

Among its fatal flaws: It took an inordinately long time to pump the stimulus money into the economic pipeline. Much of the money was often wasted or gobbled up by government. And money went out just as the recession was coming to an end or had in fact ended.

But somehow Obama was able to sell this snake oil medicine to the voters, and to a lot of economically illiterate journalists, arguing that tax cuts do not work and are even detrimental to the economy.

But the Kennedy tax cuts certainly worked in the 1960s, boosting economic growth, which in turn led to increased federal tax revenues that produced a balanced budget by the end of the decade.

President Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts certainly worked in the early 1980s following the '81-'82 recession, at that time the worst recession since the Great Depression. There was a referendum on the success of those tax cuts in 1984. Reagan carried 49 states.

And the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2002 unarguably helped the country recover from the tech bubble collapse and the 9/11 terrorist attacks when Alan Greenspan said the economy stopped breathing.

There is no accepted school of thought that says you can raise taxes and other government-imposed costs in the midst of a weak economy without irreparably hurting its ability to recover. Yet this is what Obama and the Democrats are in the process of doing.

The new health care plan comes with taxes, fees, penalties and other costs on businesses and families. The financial regulatory bill and the cap-and-trade energy bill just behind it carry a raft of other taxes and overhead expenses on our economy.

But the real economic killer will be when the Democrats, with the president's blessing, will allow George W. Bush's tax cuts to expire at the end of this year for those making more than $250,000 a year (while preserving the tax rate cuts for all those in the mid-to-lower income brackets).

These are the people who save, invest and spend the most, and are a key component of our economy. This is where venture capital investment comes from. This isn't a time to be increasing anyone's taxes. We need everyone pulling on the oars.

"We have been in recovery for more than a year -- wobbly, furtive and paper-thin as it is," Frank Ahrens says. But the very weak data we've seen in recent weeks tell us what "we've really known for months now: This recovery has been fueled by government money. And eventually that runs out." Donald Lambro

[pattygreen 5]

Obama: Let’s spend $2 billion to create 5100 jobs

Share301

posted at 11:00 am on July 3, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

printer-friendly

And I thought Barack Obama’s response to the jobs numbers yesterday was clueless. Obama proposed spending $800 million to create 5,000 jobs, which would install broadband technology where it hasn’t already expanded because of demand, which will cost $160,000 per job. Today, Obama has refined his approach in his weekly address, proposing to spend even more money to create jobs that will mainly disappear:

That’s one of the reasons why we’re accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy and doubling our use of renewable energy sources like wind and solar power – steps that have the potential to create whole new industries and hundreds of thousands of new jobs in America.

In fact, today, I’m announcing that the Department of Energy is awarding nearly $2 billion in conditional commitments to two solar companies.

The first is Abengoa Solar, a company that has agreed to build one of the largest solar plants in the world right here in the United States. After years of watching companies build things and create jobs overseas, it’s good news that we’ve attracted a company to our shores to build a plant and create jobs right here in America. In the short term, construction will create approximately 1,600 jobs in Arizona. What’s more, over 70 percent of the components and products used in construction will be manufactured in the USA, boosting jobs and communities in states up and down the supply chain. Once completed, this plant will be the first large-scale solar plant in the U.S. to actually store the energy it generates for later use – even at night. And it will generate enough clean, renewable energy to power 70,000 homes.

The second company is Abound Solar Manufacturing, which will manufacture advanced solar panels at two new plants, creating more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs. A Colorado plant is already underway, and an Indiana plant will be built in what’s now an empty Chrysler factory. When fully operational, these plants will produce millions of state-of-the-art solar panels each year.

If this is an example of how Obama will sell the green-jobs economy, he’d better hope that the public schools get a lot worse than they already are at teaching math. Obama proposes spending $2 billion to create a total of 5,100 jobs. That will cost $392,156.87 per job. That kind of money, in the private sector at least, should fund several jobs. Heck, even a government bureaucrat costs less than that; even at the Department of Transportation, that would cover two and have enough left over for a secretary.

But that’s not the only folly in this proposal. Of the 5,100 jobs Obama promises, only 1,500 of them are permanent jobs. The others are construction jobs, which will only last as long as the money flows to the project. That means we will spend over $1.3 million per “permanent” job in building this “green economy,” which looks more like a red-ink economy with even a cursory check of the numbers.

And let’s say that these 1500 jobs are all great-paying, tax-generating jobs that earn an average of $100,000 per year, and that these folks all pay an effective tax rate of 25%, which is an incredibly generous calculation. How long will it take to pay back that investment from the permanent jobs created by this effort? Why, only 53 years and 4 months! And that’s only if one doesn’t calculate the cost of money over that period of time and ignore the impact of inflation.

We know that the motto of this administration is “never let a good crisis go to waste,” but it turns out that the real crisis is mathematical illiteracy — and Obama hopes it afflicts enough people to get away with this.