Obama’s stimulus produces temp-jobs ‘recovery’
So says economist John Lott, writing at FoxNews.com:
Our current “recovery” might be in its seventeenth month, but the few new private sector jobs have come from companies temporarily hiring staff on a contract basis. What were once jobs reserved for people hired to cover seasonal demand or permanent employees on sick leave have become the standard employment for many workers. Companies simply don’t want the risk of hiring workers that they might soon have to get rid of.
Since the recovery started in June 2009, the total number of private sector jobs has increased by 203,000 [link fixed at 1:11 p.m.]. But these weren’t “regular,” permanent jobs. Indeed, permanent private sector jobs fell by 257,000.
“Temporary help service” jobs is what made up the difference, as they increased by 460,000. For all sectors of the economy, including government jobs, the drop in the number of permanent jobs during the recovery was even worse — a drop of 561,000.
The trend has recently been getting worse. During five of the last six months, the total number of permanent jobs fell. The new unemployment numbers released on Friday weren’t as bad as other recent numbers. There were 39,000 more jobs during November. However, with 39,500 coming from temporary jobs, there would have been essentially no new permanent jobs. (links original)
Hmmm … could Washington’s emphasis on temporary, demand-side “stimulus” spending have anything to do with this temporary “recovery”? As Lott notes, we can also see the temporary jobs “recovery” in government jobs — and that doesn’t even include the public-sector jobs that were “saved” by stimulus infusions in state budgets and which may disappear now that states are having to balance budgets without stimulus cash. See here for a description of what Georgia is facing.
The problem is more acute this time around than after previous recessions:
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics started collecting data on these temporary jobs in 1990, such jobs were much less common than today. Only about half as many people held temporary jobs two decades ago. Since then, the current recovery is record-setting in terms of adding temporary jobs. We can compare the three recessions since 1990. While the current recovery has seen the share of jobs held by temporary workers increase by 26 percent, the recession that ended in March 1991 saw a 10 percent increase in share held by temporary workers and the recession that ended in November 2001 had no increase …
You can see these numbers in graphic form on Lott’s personal blog here.
The culprit is not just the temporary nature of the stimulus. Lott argues, as I’ve argued before, that uncertainty is also at play:
Companies don’t want to make longer-term commitments if they don’t know what the next couple of years will look like. New regulations are being imposed on companies, be it health care, finance, the environment, and the other areas. And the exact form and extent of these regulations still have to be determined by regulators. Many small companies don’t even know what tax rates they will face after the beginning of the year. Neither the president nor the Democratically controlled congress attempted to prevent income tax rates from rising for even the middle class until just a few weeks before they were expected to rise.
Indeed.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
120 comments Add your comment
Jefferson
December 14th, 2010
11:32 am
When all the big fish in the aquarium eat the little fish, they will then starve to death but while they were fat they didn’t think of that.
carlosgvv
December 14th, 2010
11:32 am
As far as I’m concerned, there will be a recovery when, and only when, the unemployment figure drops to around five percent.
stands for decibels
December 14th, 2010
11:33 am
uncertainty is also at play
obviously we need the certainty of more tax cuts for billionaires to make American CEOs’ fee-fees all warm and toasty so that they’ll feel like hiring more of us.
it’s all so clear now. Thanks, Fox “News.”
T-Town
December 14th, 2010
11:47 am
The politics of this issue will be played out very soon on this blog. The fact is that if businesses don’t know if or what it will cost them to increase their employment numbers, they will sit on their hands and do nothing until they’re certain what the cost will be.
Hmmmmm.........
December 14th, 2010
11:53 am
T-Town – “The fact is that if businesses don’t know if or what it will cost them to increase their employment numbers, they will sit on their hands and do nothing until they’re certain what the cost will be.”
So if I have a business, and it’s possible that my building “might” get wiped out by a Tornado, I should just belay hiring indefinitely until I’m “certain” that it’s safe?
Or, do I run forecasts to assess risk and hire accordingly based on the concept of supply and demand?
barking frog
December 14th, 2010
11:56 am
Efficiency in business usually means a reduction
in labor costs. They have become more efficient.
Don’t look for a surge in hiring even if the corporate
tax is eliminated. With an extension of the current
rates Obama will have reduced taxes below the Bush
rates.
Hmmmmm.........
December 14th, 2010
11:59 am
barking frog – “They have become more efficient.
Don’t look for a surge in hiring even if the corporate
tax is eliminated.”
Someone might want to tell Washington DC that. Apparently they’ve been selling the tax extension as the “Silver Bullet” to kill the unemployment monster.
Kyle Wingfield
December 14th, 2010
12:01 pm
Hmmmm…: That is a terrible analogy. Is Congress doing anything to change the incidence of tornadoes? If the cost of insuring against tornadoes were suddenly subject to dramatic change, but you weren’t going to know what the cost would be until well after you bought the policy, are you saying you’d just continue doing what you’ve always done?
Of course businesses are assessing the risk of changes to their tax rates, regulations, etc. and hiring accordingly. The problem is that too many things are in flux, thanks to Washington, for them to be able to assess their risk with any kind of confidence. Their lack of hiring reflects their inability to assess risk properly. Or do you think businesses ignore the cost of supplying enough product/service to meet demand?
Hmmmmm.........
December 14th, 2010
12:03 pm
Just as an aside, can someone tell me at which point Capitolism went from being “Risk and Reward” and transfomed into “Safety and Certainty”?
If that’s the case, I think I’ll start investing in the market. Up until now, theres just been too much “uncertainty” for me to move forward.
get out much?
December 14th, 2010
12:05 pm
of course the fact that companies do not have to extend any benefits to contract or temporary employees have nothing to do with it.
Billyboy
December 14th, 2010
12:07 pm
Just give me my fair share. A million dollars will get me started. I deserve the money.
Hmmmmm.........
December 14th, 2010
12:08 pm
Kyle,
Actually that was sarcasm. The reality is that while taxes are a “part” of the overall P&L picture, it is far from the ONLY thing that business must consider when deciding whether or not to increase headcount. The driving force in expansion has always been DEMAND. Unfortunately the mantra of “Rich people create jobs” has long overshadowed that little fact. It doesn’t matter how “rich” you are, you are not going to invest one dime into hiring or job creation without the demand to do so.
T-Town
December 14th, 2010
12:09 pm
“So if I have a business, and it’s possible that my building “might” get wiped out by a Tornado, I should just belay hiring indefinitely until I’m “certain” that it’s safe?
Or, do I run forecasts to assess risk and hire accordingly based on the concept of supply and demand?”
Normally this would be true, but these are not normal times as compared with other recessions. Many companies I have been working with are only hiring temps until they can get some type of handle of what their costs will look like. Gridlock between the parties just may be blessing, but a politician never lets a good crisis go to waste….especially when he/she can blame the other party.
Kyle Wingfield
December 14th, 2010
12:10 pm
Hmmmm: I agree with you about risk and reward — up until the point that we are talking about regulatory/taxation risks that are purely political and have nothing to do with doing business.
get out much: So, why are things so different now than just nine years ago? Benefits were expensive, and getting more expensive, back then as well. But back then, the share of temporary jobs relative to all jobs didn’t change.
Hmmmmm.........
December 14th, 2010
12:10 pm
T-Town – “Gridlock between the parties just may be blessing, but a politician never lets a good crisis go to waste….especially when he/she can blame the other party.”
AGREED!
Hmmmmm.........
December 14th, 2010
12:12 pm
Kyle – “I agree with you about risk and reward — up until the point that we are talking about regulatory/taxation risks that are purely political and have nothing to do with doing business.”
AGREED!
Kyle Wingfield
December 14th, 2010
12:15 pm
Hmmm @ 12:08: Fine. But Lott mentioned much more than taxes. If you are a manufacturer looking at increased costs for such basic elements as labor (benefits), energy and capital, without knowing what the increases will be, in addition to your tax rates — all because of government’s actions, apart from normal changes in market conditions — you are not going to invest a dime in job creation, either.
Hmmmmm.........
December 14th, 2010
12:20 pm
Kyle @ 12:15 You’re absolutely right. My point has always been that it’s just too simplistic to merely say that jobs are not being created just because of the taxes, as you have pointed out. Unfortunately that’s the soundbyte that gets spewed out over and over again.
Simply put, I could pay no taxes, and it still wouldn’t motivate me to hire someone to do nothing more than stand around and act as a reminder to me of how lucky I am that I don’t have to pay taxes.
I think we agree that the system is just a little more complex.
Guy Incognito
December 14th, 2010
12:23 pm
Why doesn’t the administration just change the formula for unemployment similar to what they’ve done w inflation? They keep saying there’s no inflation, but they took food and energy prices out of the equation. Wow!
rant and roll
December 14th, 2010
12:33 pm
corporations exist to make money. As long as corporations can make money while keeping payroll low – they will.
Giving business tax breaks that outsource jobs is counterproductive – but it is the GOP way.
Question Authority
December 14th, 2010
12:33 pm
Keynesian economic theory is a complete failure. The first Great Depression should have made that clear, but big-spending government (both republican and democrat) loves any theory that claims that government spending is the same or better than private sector spending. As a result, Keynesian theory is the only government-approved theory and policy that is allowed to be spoken by government officials and the government-controlled media. Only the Austrian school has it right, and the longer this Depression lasts (and it will last a long time if their ideas are ignored) the more their ideas are validated. Go to www(dot)mises(dot)org to find out about the correct economic way to look at what is going on, what caused it, and how to fix it. Thankfully for the internet everyone can learn the truth.
JD
December 14th, 2010
12:34 pm
Wow — an economist who can say with certainty that a single cause (Obama stimulus) is creating the effects of a temporary job recovery! Bravo! Lott has done what no other economist can do, unless they only have one hand (inside economist joke, ‘on the other hand’ ahem, moving on).
Bush administration economists and others told us that the economy, post-recovery, would be unlike any other post-recovery economies we have observed. Therefore, comparing this recover with others is fraught with fallacy. Second, his analysis rejects, out-of-hand, any other explanation to the lack of jobs being created here — such as work force not ready for the next generation of services, lower cost of production elsewhere, etc.
Everyone will read what they want to read — and the conclusions are all the same — this recovery stinks.
jconservative
December 14th, 2010
12:42 pm
People close to me are in the “temp worker” business and they are booming and have been for several years. This is not a new development.
The company I am familiar with has started 3 new companies in the last 6 years just to keep up with the demand for temp workers. Twelve years ago they did not exist
None of this accounts for the drop in “net jobs created” that we have experienced in the last 20 plus years. When “net jobs created” drops from 30% to 0% percent there must be more at work here than Congress and governmental policies.
Name the 3 largest retail markets in the world in the year 2021.
Did you name the USA?
@@
December 14th, 2010
12:46 pm
Even Bernie Sanders in his “fill-a-bluster” admitted that real unemployment stands at 17%.
Hanging onto “HOPE” is a trap-door that’ll leave us dangling.
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
12:48 pm
Whenever someone starts off a statement citing as their authority “FoxNews.com”, I have to smirk and wonder what they’re trying to prove by citing a Republican party organ like that.
Question authority: “Keynesian economic theory is a complete failure.”
The only thing that can clearly be judged a “complete failure” is the neoliberal economics you’re touting. Period.
We’ve now arrived at a point where no ideology – be it Keynesian, Austrian, or otherwise – can provide clear guidance. Capitalism has entered a kind of terminal stage, in other wise, and if anyone has been proved prescient it’s Mr. Marx himself.
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
12:55 pm
@@ “Hanging onto “HOPE” is a trap-door that’ll leave us dangling.”
Not sure what that’s supposed to prove. Who seriously believes in “HOPE” now anyway?
“Hope” was a nice tactical move during the campaign – good for some cheap reverie among some sentimental souls – but it’s long been bought and paid for by the usual Wall Street suspects and sent off for embalming at the museums of American electoral history for exhibit next to “read my lips” and others.
Port O'John
December 14th, 2010
12:57 pm
Fox News?
Isn’t this the same outfit that reported that Obama’s trip to India cost US Taxpayers something like $200 billion per day or that just recently reported that a school district in Texas told students that they could not wear “red and green” because those colors symbolize Christmas?
That Fox News? Turned out Fox was flat wrong on both counts. But don’t hold your breath waiting for a retraction.
But if that’s who you want to quote….
Kyle Wingfield
December 14th, 2010
1:10 pm
Port O’John, and anyone else doubting the figures because of the source: You can go to the BLS website and see the numbers for yourselves.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
1:11 pm
The game that’s being played here is a slow and patient process of desensitization. The first time “FOX News” is actually used as a serious citation the writer knows that it evokes a kind of wince.
It’s as if I were writing an article in a serious tax policy journal and dropped the name “Al Capone”.
But if enough people drop the name “Al Capone” over enough time, then readers stop wincing and thinking that the writer is a two-bit hack.
JF McNamara
December 14th, 2010
1:14 pm
I guess the view is always different from where you stand…
I thought companies were hiring workers temp/contract workers because a) demand hasn’t picked up requiring more staffing, and
b) its cheaper to not offer any benefits and have no long term commitment. Its like outsourcing to U.S. employees which we know companies love.
Its been well publicized that companies are sitting on the cash, and why shouldn’t they? They are running more efficiently right now and its flowing through to profit. That’s not politically based of fear of regulation based, its the companies doing whats in their best interests.
If you’re right, then the hiring floodgates will swing open in January since the Republicans will be there to console the rich businessmen. I hope you’re right, but I know that’s not going to happen…
The Dismal Pseudoscience
December 14th, 2010
1:15 pm
Why do we still pretend economists have any idea what they’re talking about?
Question Authority
December 14th, 2010
1:28 pm
Left wing management – not sure where you got the idea that Austrian economics is “neo-liberal”. If anything, it is libertarian (or what used to be known as “Classical Liberal”. And as for the death of capitalism, it would help your argument if we actually had Free Market Capitalism. All we are seeing is the death of corporate capitalism or what used to be called merchantilism. The government, through the agency of the Federal Reserve has been inflating the money supply to fund its wasteful spending, its illegal wars, and to line the pockets of its friends in industry (both democrat and republican).
Before you condemn any economic theory you might want to spend more than the time it takes to read the name and actually learn its principles. Your ignorance, especially in light of the growing resurgency and embrace of Austrian economic thought, is shameful.
Dave
December 14th, 2010
1:30 pm
Left Wing Management,
I didn’t know anyone could be so delusional and imbecilic, but the left keeps proving me wrong on that.
We got into this economic hole because of the Leftist housing policies pushed by Democrats and RINO Republicans. We’re staying in this economic hole because of the uncertainty to employers created by Commie Obama and the leftist wingnuts that the American people foolishly elected to office in 2008.
What employer would want to hire someone in this economy when they have no idea what kind of cost-increasing leftist regulations will be created by the Obama regime tomorrow, next month or next July?
Leave the taxes where they are, reduce the leftist regulatory threats and bring the various out-of-control federal agencies under control and we’ll be able to pull out of this.
Dave
December 14th, 2010
1:35 pm
JF,
A company sitting on a bunch of cash (like several American companies) isn’t making the best use of that cash. Money sitting in bank accounts isn’t very profitable. Investing it would be more profitable, but the problem is that most companies have no idea what the hell is going to come out of D.C. from one day to the next.
Companies WANT to invest, but can’t until some stability returns to the economy in the form of reigning in the leftist nutjobs currently in power in D.C.
DebbieDoRight
December 14th, 2010
1:55 pm
T-Town: The fact is that if businesses don’t know if or what it will cost them to increase their employment numbers, they will sit on their hands and do nothing until
Oh please!! My high school cousin can do better than that!! So, basically what you’re saying, (since jobs have been “disappearing” since 2002); that companies are confused, clueless, and lost; that’s why they’re shipping jobs overseas to places like India? Oh yeah, that makes sense.
DebbieDoRight
December 14th, 2010
1:57 pm
Companies WANT to invest, but can’t until some stability returns to the economy in the form of reigning in the leftist nutjobs currently in power in D.C.
The Bush Tax Cuts have been in affect for how long now….10 years? How much stability do they need? Also, In all that time, could you please tell me how many jobs that these companies who want to invest, have created? I’ll wait……….
CJ
December 14th, 2010
1:59 pm
Kyle the propagandist is still desperately selling the “uncertainty” meme, despite the fact that it is the Republicans who seek to increase uncertainty by refusing to permanently extend the middle class tax cuts, seeking to repeal health care reform, fighting to extend temporary tax cuts for the wealthy that otherwise would “certainly” have expired.
Also, it doesn’t follow that employers are more hiring temp workers, therefore stimulus doesn’t work. One could make a strong argument, any many economists do, that the most stimulative portions of the Recovery Act (e.g., unemployment insurance extensions, federal aid to states, infrastructure spending) worked great and should have been larger. Unfortunately, the desire to see this President fail is stronger than the desire to enact effective policies that work to create jobs and get us back on track.
DebbieDoRight
December 14th, 2010
2:00 pm
We got into this economic hole because of the Leftist housing policies pushed by Democrats and RINO Republicans.
Partly right. We’re in this mess because of WALL STREET and their need to play the market for their own gains, dang the consequences.
We’re staying in this economic hole because of the uncertainty to employers created by Commie Obama and the leftist wingnuts that the American people foolishly elected to office in 2008.
THIS is why we need more education dollars in the State of Georgia…………a mind really is a terrible thing to waste…….
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
2:06 pm
Question authority: “If anything, it is libertarian (or what used to be known as “Classical Liberal”. And as for the death of capitalism, it would help your argument if we actually had Free Market Capitalism”
Here, let me untangle a couple of things for you. I didn’t say that Austrian is neoliberal per se. What I’m referring to is a policy amalgam that has been advanced across the globe for 30+ years – represented e.g. by figures such as Pinochet, Reagan, Thatcher – and which culminated in the financial collapse of 2007-8. To understand the ‘liberal’ in neoliberal, think ‘lassez faire’.
Nor did I say exactly that what we’re seeing is the “death of capitalism”. What I said was that capitalism has entered a ‘terminal’ stage, which means that its evolution will likely take on very different and surprising forms as we go forward. In particular, the fate of its relationship to liberal democracy is more questionable than ever and will likely become even more so. To name just one example, ask yourself which country represents the most powerful form of capitalism in the world today? Is it democratic?
Dave: The tragedy of the era in which we’re living is that a large number of people – misled by demagogues – assume the biggest problem with capitalism is that it’s never been tried in pure form. In truth, we’ve just seen a 30 year experiment in a form of capitalism that is as pure as any that we’ve seen since the pre-Depression era and the results of that are plain for all to see.
JF McNamara
December 14th, 2010
2:09 pm
Dave,
The best use of cash varies. If there is no demand, its better to have cash than too much inventory or underperforming store. You’re right in that companies WANT to invest, they problem is that there isn’t the demand to justify additional investment.
Companies like Apple are investing and hiring, because they are growing in markets with demand. Southern Company is not because power consumption is down. Its best for Apple to invest. Its best for Southern Company to hold cash.
The business environment today politically isn’t bad. If it were, then the stock market wouldn’t have recovered and companies wouldn’t be reporting great earnings. They are in spite of the “left wing nut jobs”. You’ve fallen for propaganda to get your vote. The actual reality is that companies are doing quite well and aren’t in a hurry to increase costs. Its got nothing at all to do with politics.
JDW
December 14th, 2010
2:12 pm
Bit behind the times there Kyle! The trend in temporary employees has been booming for years. Here is a nice synopsis from 2002:
http://www.prounlimited.com/resources/need/print/TrendLetter0902.pdf
From a management perspective companies have been using any excuse available to move toward this model and it has nothing to do with uncertainty over taxes. Frankly I get a chuckle out of all the spin that attempts to persuade people that businesses predicate hiring on taxes….THE TWO ARE NOT RELATED AT ALL. In fact the higher the tax rate the less risk involved in new hires. Remember employees are paid with PRETAX dollars. The only thing that drives hiring is growth. If a business needs employees to grow then they hire if not they don’t.
From a profitability perspective if an employee contributes an acceptable return to the Operating Profit line they get hired. Taxes never enter into the equation and in fact are managed totally separately from the operations side of the business.
Dave
December 14th, 2010
2:14 pm
Debbie,
“The Bush Tax Cuts have been in affect for how long now….10 years? How much stability do they need?”
- And the economy was surging for most of that time (until the housing crash caused by Democrats and RINOs). Stability is a question of FUTURE conditions, not past conditions. Companies had no idea what this leftist loon in the White House and his fellow Marxists in Congress were going to do, so they’ve basically played it safe and sat on their hands.
“Partly right. We’re in this mess because of WALL STREET and their need to play the market for their own gains, dang the consequences.”
- Wall Street has been around for a long time, and the banks (and the concept of home loans) for even longer. Greed is a vice which has been with the human race since it’s creation. And yet, after only after a decade or so of leftist housing policies pushed in the name of “fairness” we have a massive housing boom and bust.
Look back at the history of the housing crash if you can drag yourself away from the Rachel Maddow show for a moment: banks didn’t decide on their own to just up and start lending to unreliable borrowers for the hell of it. They were forced to by the federal government’s housing policies and by Fannie/Freddie (two arms of the same government).
Dave
December 14th, 2010
2:19 pm
JF,
The only one falling for propaganda are those like you who think that high regulation environments are great for business growth. Do you actually KNOW anyone who owns or runs a business? Likely not, since most on the left like to sit on government payrolls and not actually compete for anything. Talk to someone who actually owns a business which comes into contact with federal regulations and ask them what they think.
You know it’s bad when Canada, of all places, is luring business out of the U.S. because of the high cost of regulation and taxation in the leftist northeast.
True American
December 14th, 2010
2:20 pm
If the Bush tax cut were so good, why did we lose 5 millions jobs under GW? Rep are a much of hyprocrites, its ok to add on to the Debt long as their rich friends benefits.
Dave
December 14th, 2010
2:23 pm
Left Wing Management,
I’m not sure which alternate universe you live in, but the last thing we’ve seen over the last 20 years has been pure capitalism. We’ve seen a bunch of regulation and crony capitalism, but when Washington D.C. picks the winners and losers in business, that’s not “capitalism” unles you’ve lived in San Francisco or D.C. all your life.
Left-wing politicians thought they knew better than banks who deserved a home loan, and look where that got us. Now they think they know better than us what types of cars we should drive and what types of energy we should use, and that will get us into the same mess.
Jefferson
December 14th, 2010
2:23 pm
Tax idle cash or put it to use…stop crying or I’ll give you something to cry about.
Dave
December 14th, 2010
2:25 pm
False American,
Are you including the jobs lost by the housing recession caused by left-wing housing policies? If so, don’t blame those on conservatives. Those are leftist policies which resulted in a leftist recession, regardless of the fact that it was a RINO president that helped push them.
Dave
December 14th, 2010
2:26 pm
Jefferson,
Why not just use the word ’steal’, since that’s what you mean.
Linda
December 14th, 2010
2:27 pm
Debbie @ 1:55, Jobs have not been disappearing since ‘02. The Bush tax cuts were passed in ‘01 & ‘03. According to the Bureau of Labor, the average annual unemployment rates were:
‘98 4.5%
‘99 4.2%
‘00 4.0%
‘01 4.7%
‘02 5.8%
‘03 6.0
‘04 5.5%
‘05 5.1%
‘06 4.6%
‘07 4.6%
‘08 5.8%
‘09 9.3%
Now, it’s almost 10%.
Before the Bush tax cuts went into effect, unemployment hit a peak of 6.5% in 6/03. After the Bush tax cuts went into effect, unemployment went as low as 4.4% in 3/07, but without question, the unemployment rate constantly & gradually went down with the Bush tax cuts until the economic crisis hit in ‘08. As a matter of fact, other than the years I posted above (’98-’00), the unemployment rate was the lowest during the Bush adm. than since 1969!!!!!!!
Double Standard
December 14th, 2010
2:32 pm
Sometimes I connect the dots and learn things ignored by the corporate media. Every Friday evening the FDIC releases the names of banks that it just ordered closed. I peruse the list out of curiosity to see what local banks may have died. Over time, I’ve noticed that a lot of banks were closed in the state of Georgia. That makes no sense since it was not one of the states hit worst by the real estate crash, like: Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and California. I just counted the current list and the state with most bank failures is Georgia, which has just 3.16% of the American population and ranks 9th in state population! Hard hit California has four times its population and fewer bank failures?
The Feds nor our corporate media seem interested in this obvious clue of massive criminal activity that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. I googled and see that only “Business Week” made a comment on this oddity, noting cases of obvious criminal abuse remain uninvestigated. Unfortunately, most of our tough investigative journalists have been retired and replaced by wealthy spokesmodels. Note that our most famous investigative program “60 Minutes” now reserves one of its three weekly slots for a celebrity interview. PBS “Frontline” remains the best, although its content has been watered down after if was somehow taken over the “New York Times” corporate syndicate.
Here is my question for the Feds and our media: How can the state of Georgia have the most bank failures when it ranks 9th in population and wasn’t one of the states hardest hit by the real estate crash? I wonder if such observations may cause my demise. In the movie “The Pelican Brief” an obscure law school student writes paper on a theory about who killed two Supreme Court Justices. She soon finds herself in mortal danger. Perhaps one of my odd musing may cause well-dressed men to gun me down in an “apparent robbery attempt,” while this website closes down for “content violations.” Yet I ask again: Who illegally pocketed billions of dollars in federally backed loans from Georgia banks?
Jefferson
December 14th, 2010
2:34 pm
I’ve yet to find a failed banker in GA that wasn’t a republican.
Port O'John
December 14th, 2010
2:35 pm
Umm, its not the BLS numbers that matter so much as the political views of the commentator. Any opinion writer, whether they are from the NYT, CNN, Fox News, those fuzzy-heads at MSNMC, and, clearly, the AJC, are only going to be selective in what statistics they use and in what context to support what ever pre-conceived conclusion they want to reach.
I know your a very partisan writer Kyle, that’s why the AJC hired you and you probably cannot help yourself. If you want to believe everything Fox News says, that’s your right.
But boy, Fox News has told some whoppers, that story on the banning of red/green was just the latest knee-slapper.
BTW — is it true that the AJC banned the use of the word “sprawl” because it offends suburbanites? I read that in that left-wing rag Creative Loafing and I thought “can’t possibly be true…” — but I’m starting to wonder.
ronald
December 14th, 2010
2:41 pm
True American said (at 2:20) “Rep are a much of hyprocrites, its ok to add on to the Debt long as their rich friends benefits.”
True American- What the GOP fought for, and what your boy Barack also agreed to, is an extension of the tax cuts for ALL AMERICANS. It is the congressional democrats (and class envy) that attempt to divide the country along income lines when they continously try to demonize the wealthy. So stop your BS whining about how “the rich benefit” from the tax cuts. EVERYONE benefits.
Kyle Wingfield
December 14th, 2010
2:43 pm
Double Standard: Maybe your research should have involved reading the AJC, because our news reporters have been writing about the bank failures — including investigations into fraud and other potential criminal charges — for months and months.
Dave
December 14th, 2010
2:59 pm
Jefferson – I’ve yet to find a lazy societal leech who wasn’t a Democrat. Chances are, most successful bankers are probably Republicans too.
ronald
December 14th, 2010
3:04 pm
To Double Standard:
“Here is my question for the Feds and our media: How can the state of Georgia have the most bank failures when it ranks 9th in population and wasn’t one of the states hardest hit by the real estate crash”
The # of banks is irrelevant, you should be focusing on the size of the banks that are failing. IndyMac in California probably had more assets than all failed Georgia banks put together. Georgia has more small, community banks than most other areas of the country, due to the population explosion in the 80’s and 90’s when many denovo banks in Georgia were founded. When the real estate market crashed, it was precisely those smaller, newer banks that were the first to fail. You should not read into the “# of banks” theory as an indication that fraud is at work in Georgia.
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
3:07 pm
Dave: “I’ve yet to find a lazy societal leech who wasn’t a Democrat. Chances are, most successful bankers are probably Republicans too.”
Societal leach?
Laziness? Laziness is good. After all Aristotle thought that leisure was the highest form of human existence, the privilege of aristocrats.
As far as leaching, that’s what the financier class does with their unusual derivative products. They leach the ground right under your feet .. not that you’re aware of it ..
Jefferson
December 14th, 2010
3:09 pm
Dave, you agree then change the subject.
CJ
December 14th, 2010
3:11 pm
Dave, “I’ve yet to find a lazy societal leech who wasn’t a Democrat.”
While Dave scours the country for lazy societal leeches who are not Democrats (get help brother), Ronald @2:41 absorbs the right-wing propaganda that having about a quarter of the country’s wealth going to about 1 percent of the households (more wealth than the bottom 50 percent combined) somehow benefits EVERYONE.
Clearly, Ronald is the one who suffers from class envy. The rest of us are victims of legalized theft.
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
3:15 pm
ronald : “It is the congressional democrats (and class envy) that attempt to divide the country along income lines ”
Why do you engage in class warfare, ronald?
Why do you carry water for people who pillage?
Fletch
December 14th, 2010
3:17 pm
Dave – “Do you actually KNOW anyone who owns or runs a business? Likely not, since most on the left like to sit on government payrolls and not actually compete for anything. Talk to someone who actually owns a business which comes into contact with federal regulations and ask them what they think.”
Dave, you can talk to me. My partners and I have diversified holdings in Georgia, California and Montana. With our Air Charter Company here in Georgia (Air Atlanta), we deal with Federal Regulators all the time.
At no time over the course of the last decade (including the last 2 years) have I or my partners EVER based our expansion or hiring on the policies of the sitting POTUS. Expansion and hiring has ALWAYS been based on NEED and DEMAND. We certainly never “sat on our hands” wondering in confusion what next step we should take based upon the absolute garbage thrown out by the Left or the Right.
A better question would be do YOU know anyone who has ever owned a business?
Kyle Wingfield
December 14th, 2010
3:18 pm
CJ: What is “the country’s wealth”?
Linda
December 14th, 2010
3:23 pm
The left has called the right, especially Tea Party members, every ugly name in the book. When that only inspired us, they escalated their class warfare.
Let me repeat a comment.
Even if not religious, most people are moral & minimally abide by at least a few of the Ten Commandments, especially the ones against murder, theft, lying & cheating on your spouse. Right there among those is envy. It’s sinful & immoral & frankly, it’s childish & unbecoming. Jealousy is a character flaw.
Class warfare has been alive & well in this country for the last 2 yrs. It’s a further attempt to divide our nation. Anyone who can’t see thru this & worse, participates in it, is a dupe.
Your neighbor might think you make too much money, but your mama would disagree. Always listen to your mama & do your best.
If people didn’t make gobs of money, we wouldn’t have the Falcons, movies or computers.
CJ
December 14th, 2010
3:24 pm
Kyle, “What is “the country’s wealth”?”
Household annual income –
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/feds/2009/200913/200913pap.pdf
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10winbulinincome.pdf
Kyle Wingfield
December 14th, 2010
3:26 pm
Now: How is it produced?
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
3:37 pm
Linda:
Bless you for your sincerity, you do mean well. But here’s a quote for you to ponder;
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles“.
ronald
December 14th, 2010
3:37 pm
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
3:15 pm
“Why do you engage in class warfare, ronald? Why do you carry water for people who pillage?”
Left-wing: I was correcting True American, who claimed that the GOP were just helping the rich. I was pointing out that the GOP-led extension of the tax cuts benefited ALL AMERICANS. The congressional democrats wanted to help everyone EXCEPT for the top wage earners. When Congressional democrats sought to exclude the top wage earners from a benefit that they wanted to give to everyone else, they were practicing Class Envy and trying to demonize the wealthy. It is the Congressional democrats who practice Class Warfare on a daily basis and it is the GOP who seek equal benefits for all. The recent tax debate is all the proof you need.
Unpainted Huffhines
December 14th, 2010
3:37 pm
Thanks for bringing up the topic of “Temps.” The Temp industry has been growing like crazy since 1989. Temp jobs have had a profound impact on the labor market, but this Lott guy doesn’t tell us what a “Temporary” job is, or remember his timelines well.
For example: “the recession that ended in March 1991 saw a 10 percent increase in share held by temporary workers and the recession that ended in November 2001 had no increase …” November 2001, recession ended? The news must have been too busy reporting the 2000-point post-9/11 drop in the Dow in Nov ‘01 to let everybody know a recession had ended.
“Companies don’t want to make longer-term commitments if they don’t know what the next couple of years will look like.”
Well golly gee Mr. Lott! I want to invest $1 million in the stock market, but I don’t know what the next couple of years are going to look like. Isn’t one of the overriding characteristics of the free market the fact that the future is uncertain?
“New regulations are being imposed on companies, be it health care, finance, the environment, and the other areas.”
These poor, poor companies! Were it not for those pesky regulation, “they” could create a monopoly and know exactly how much “they” will make, not only in the “next couple of years,” but forever. This, of course, will stop the rapid growth of the temp agency dead in its tracks! And why must our small businesses be prohibited from things like dumping battery acid in the river, or only taking loans where they have a record of being able to pay them back?
Companies have said they “feared” hiring permanent employees for years, therefore they must hire temps. Not sure what the market is like now, but in 1998 the temp agency would be paid about 2.5 to 3 times more per hour than what their contractor would be paid. In my case, worker made $11.25/hour, temp agency got about $53/hour, sometimes more or less, depending on work involved. Overall, the man-hour/costs to hire a perm or temp were equal from year to year. Other than time and convenience, there is no additional cost for a company to fire a temp or regular employee.
If this article is to imply that it is harder for a company to fire an employee as opposed to a Temp, it doesn’t actually work that way. Most companies have a 90-day probationary period, union or otherwise. Benefits can be processed with a few minutes worth of paperwork. The only advantage for a company in going with a temp agency is the Company can have the agency inform the Temp about termination. In my experience, self-described conservatives have been the ones most afraid to fire and lay-off, or perform the discipline necessary to establish cause, so they would hire temps, stating that the future was uncertain. Invariably, they would have the agency inform of a job ending, even though in many cases that was a bald-faced lie. Most of these folks would also agree with this article.
Concerning firing “for cause,” temps have the same rights as Employment-at-will, more in some contracts. Temps often sign away liability against the company, but seldom does that result in any expense or savings.
“Only about half as many people held temporary jobs two decades ago.”
Another change from 20 years ago is in 1990, 4 years after Reagan’s executive order 12564, only 10% of private companies drug-tested, in 2010 99% of private companies drug test. When temps are hired, unless their agency requires, they do not have to take a pre-employment drug screen. When I needed an employee right away, I couldn’t wait 3 days for drug screen results! Indeed, temps would decline becoming perm because they did not want to drug test. Or, if they were good workers, they would stay clean leading up to their drug test. The growth in temp agencies correlates better with the increase in drug testing than it does with the rise in temp job numbers during Democratic presidencies, as Lott attempted to demonstrate in his quotes.
CJ
December 14th, 2010
3:43 pm
“Now: How is it produced?”
Before I address how wealth is produced, let’s make sure that we’re on the same page with the statistics?
The top 1 percent “has gone through enormous fluctuations along the course of the twentieth century, from about 18 percent (of income) before WWI, to a peak to almost 24 percent in the late 1920s, to only about 9 percent during the 1960s-1970s, and back to almost 23.5 percent by 2007.”
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2007.pdf
How is the wealth produced? It varies. Some is inherited. Some is profit of the sale of investments. Some is received as dividends from investments. Some is received as a gift. Some is earned from setting the alarm and going to work every day. Some is paid, but not earned, such as that that goes to members of boards that collect money without providing oversight, or management that collects a disproportionate amount of compensation at the expense of employees, customers, and stockholders.
What do I mean by “legalized theft?” The fact that tax rates on income from working for a living results in workers subsidizing lower tax rates, and even tax write-offs, on income from investments and inheritances. And the fact that compensation for board members and upper management in big business is frequently significantly disproportionate to their contributions, leaving less compensation available to other company workers and lower long-term profits for stockholders.
Of course, this is all possible because of our pay-to-play political system in which corporations are now considered “persons” under our Constitution and wealth is equated to speech such that the few with the most money dominate the political conversation in our country.
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
3:43 pm
And Linda, you mention morality, so here’s another quote for you:
“Law, morality, religion, are to him [the proletarian] so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.“
j
December 14th, 2010
3:45 pm
Companies don’t want to make longer-term commitments if they don’t know what the next couple of years will look like.
——
Where did you find this crackhead? he writes garbage that’s why he is not involved in running a business.
Lott is a friggin moron. Please try again. Go out and find a CEO in ATL and talk to him/her then report back.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
December 14th, 2010
3:49 pm
I know one thing for sure, the space heater industry is being stimulated as we speak, and it didn’t get any help from obozo.
I thought the planet was warming?
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
3:50 pm
ronald: “It is the Congressional democrats who practice Class Warfare on a daily basis and it is the GOP who seek equal benefits for all.”
With any luck they’ll not just practice it on a daily basis, but at night during their sleep too.
We need class warriors in droves. Lots and lots and lost of them.
And the reason, you ask: because the war is being carried out at every moment.
“the GOP-led extension of the tax cuts benefited ALL AMERICANS. The congressional democrats wanted to help everyone EXCEPT for the top wage earners”
Logic is flawless, I must say. But alas, the point is useless.
A “benefit” to those who are not top wage earners is not the same as one to those who are and do not need a benefit.
Jefferson
December 14th, 2010
3:50 pm
The only thing that give money any value is the fact that someone will work for it.
CJ
December 14th, 2010
3:51 pm
Following up Kyle,
I just read a statistic that about half of the wealthiest people in this country inherited it. I’ll do some more research, but if true, then the answer to the question about how wealth is produced is that, for about half of these folks, it comes from Mommy and Daddy.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
December 14th, 2010
3:52 pm
As Mr. Holbrooke was sedated for surgery, family members said, his final words were to his Pakistani surgeon: ‘You’ve got to stop this war in Afghanistan’…
And then the Pakistani offed him.
Maybe they’ll build a mosque in Holbrook’s neighborhood, named after………..the surgeon.
Fletch
December 14th, 2010
3:54 pm
“Companies don’t want to make longer-term commitments if they don’t know what the next couple of years will look like.”
This statement makes absolutely no sense at all. If I run a forecast model, I can manipulate the numbers any way I want + or -. If there is “uncertainty” regarding cost, you simply compensate for it in your projections. i.e. My cost might go up by 8%, I will therefore compensate for an increase of 10%. If the costs do not surpass 10% then I simply adjust the model. If they do rise beyond 10% same thing. You can do this for 1 year, 5 years, 10 years etc… No one is simply sitting around until January 1st to make decisions. As a point of fact, most businesses operate on “fiscal” year, and should already have had their cost projections completed well before now.
Linda
December 14th, 2010
4:18 pm
Tax cuts for the millionaires & billionaires:
1. People who make a million or a billion dollars are not necessarily millionaires nor billionaires (because they have to pay for taxes, among other things like food).
2. People who are millionaires & billionaires do not necessarily have any annual income. (Do they need to work?)(Does their trust fund pay the bills?)
3. Individuals who make $200K & couples who make $250K are probably not millionaires, let alone billionaires. The couple might be a firefighter married to a teacher living in NYC in a one-BR apt.
4. The upper tax bracket scheduled to increase from 35 to 39.6% does not kick in until the taxable income has exceeded $372,950, a heck of a lot more than $200K for singles & $250K for couples.
There are 3.8 M people who make between $200K for singles/$250 for couples & $500K. There are only 608,000 people who make between $500K & $1M. There are only 315,000 people who make over $1M.
If the Dems. let the tax cuts expire, there are 156 million people (hostages) who make less than $200K who will be paying another $157 B in 2011.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/earners-of-less-than-500-000-wouldn-t-face-higher-taxes-in-democrat-plan.html
Jefferson
December 14th, 2010
4:28 pm
Cuts gov’t spending will increase unemployment, cuts to medicare will increase insurance premiums and possibly close hospitals, forcing doctors to hike prices to maintain their standard of living. Spending cuts, yep that’s the ticket.
Linda
December 14th, 2010
4:32 pm
Paying taxes has always been voluntary. That is, any taxes over & above what you are required to pay are entirely voluntary. This is one way that we are all entitled. We are entitled to pay more than the minimum. Volunteers are always greatly appreciated. We talk about social justice but do we practice it fully?
JF McNamara
December 14th, 2010
4:40 pm
Dave,
I never said I was for high regulations. I’m not. In fact, my whole post was pretty much the Republican playbook. People in a free market economy are doing what is in their best interest. For the government to do anything would likely not change the situation at all. That was my whole point. I’m not really sure how that makes me a lefty, since free markets and the invisible hand are what conservatives believe in. If anything, you’re the lefty since you believe that the government actually has that much control over the market instead of what Adam Smith thought.
I don’t work for the government. I rent properties, invest, and have a job at a competitive company. I know plenty of business owners, and I know what they want. They want more demand. I want more demand for my rentals. I want more demand for my stocks, and my company wants more demand for their products. Until that happens, I’m spending as little as possible because that what is in my best interest.
When I believe there will be more renters, I’ll buy more properties. When I think there will be more free cash, I’ll buy more stocks. I don’t see that in the near future, and that has nothing to do with the government at all.
Fletch
December 14th, 2010
4:42 pm
JF,
Excellent!
Kyle Wingfield
December 14th, 2010
4:50 pm
CJ: In the first place, you’re confusing, or at least conflating, wealth and income.
Second, to describe one person’s income as “legalized theft” implies that it originally belonged to someone else. To whom does this money rightfully belong? How can you presume to know the contributions of “upper management” — you use the term as if it applies equally to virtually all people who qualify for the term, across virtually all companies and virtually all industries — and whether upper managers’ compensation is in proportion to said contributions? (Would you say that the power claimed by our current political “upper management” is in proportion to our political upper managers’ contributions?)
Third, to say that “workers” — again, your word and your distinction — are subsidizing lower tax rates for investment or inheritance, or any person considered “rich,” implies that a) there is a natural level of tax rates for those activities, and b) you know what it is. So, tell us: How much more would “the rich” have to pay before they’re not subsidizing anyone else?
Even more to the point: How much money does one have to make before he becomes a thief rather than a victim?
And make no mistake, this is a twisted notion of victimology that you are pushing.
Dave
December 14th, 2010
5:01 pm
Left Wing Management,
“Laziness? Laziness is good. After all Aristotle thought that leisure was the highest form of human existence, the privilege of aristocrats.”
- leisure, not laziness. Leisure is the well-earned reward of your own work. Laziness is sitting around waiting to be handed something out of someone else’s pocket.
Dave
December 14th, 2010
5:05 pm
CJ,
“I just read a statistic that about half of the wealthiest people in this country inherited it.”
You read a lie then (probably on some leftist propaganda network like MSNBC). Most wealthy people did NOT inherit their wealth, they earned it. The vast majority of millionaires in this country are first-generation wealthy, having built-up their fortunes over time. Many of them are also entrepreneurs who own or run their own business.
Paris Hilton does NOT represent most wealthy people in this country, leftist groupthink notwithstanding.
T-Town
December 14th, 2010
5:14 pm
DebbieDoRight sez: T-Town: The fact is that if businesses don’t know if or what it will cost them to increase their employment numbers, they will sit on their hands and do nothing until”
and
Oh please!! My high school cousin can do better than that!! So, basically what you’re saying, (since jobs have been “disappearing” since 2002); that companies are confused, clueless, and lost; that’s why they’re shipping jobs overseas to places like India? Oh yeah, that makes sense.”
Well Ms.DoRight; This is MY opinion. I suggest that if you or your HS cousin could do better, please forward your suggestions to the US Congress and maybe you and your HS cousin can get the country moving again. Certainly the current policies by Congress are not working, so be my guest.
Will
December 14th, 2010
5:14 pm
So…..republicans believe that cutting taxes for millionaires stimulates the economy by putting more money in millionaire’s pockets so that they will invest and expand, thereby helping the funds “trickle down” to others.
The Bush millionaire tax cuts have been in place for how long? How’s that “trickle down thingy” working for our our current economy? How’s that re-investment working for our unemployment rate?
Yes sir… we must protect the millionaire’s tax cuts in order to keep this robust economy afloat!!!
Dave
December 14th, 2010
5:17 pm
Fletch,
To answer your question, I certainly do. The ones I’ve spoken to are as concerned about the direction of this government and this country as they can ever remember, mostly because of the endless need of goverment to regulate and control everything.
There was an op-ed piece in the paper a few months back by the owner of a business up in NJ talking about the massive cost of hiring a new employee over-and-above the person’s salary, when you factor in all the additional costs tacked on by government fiat from various agencies.
Out of curiosity, do you vote Democrat? If so, why?
Dave
December 14th, 2010
5:22 pm
Will,
If you weren’t such a shallow-minded envy-riddled fool you’d realize that the economy only hit the skids when the housing crash happened. The housing crash was caused by liberal housing policies which treated “owning” a home as an absolute good, and assumed that the denial of a mortgage to anyone with dark skin was clear evidence of racism. This in spite of the fact that mortgage denial rates were the same in black-owned banks as they were in white-owned banks.
Tax rates had nothing to do with the economic crash of 2008.
Linda
December 14th, 2010
5:25 pm
Will @ 5:14, Read my post @ 2:27. It refudiates your statement. The “trickle down thingy” seems to have worked better than the “hopey changy thingy.”
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
5:30 pm
Dave: “Leisure is the well-earned reward of your own work.”
Or the work of others, as the case may be.
“Laziness is sitting around waiting to be handed something out of someone else’s pocket.”
Even if the recipients already have their hands in that other pocket.
In other words, what’s the difference?
Dave
December 14th, 2010
5:34 pm
Left Wing Management,
Try making sense sometime. It helps people understand what the hell you’re saying.
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
5:47 pm
Kyle: “Even more to the point: How much money does one have to make before he becomes a thief rather than a victim?”
The level of income is beside the point. The point is the ownership of capital.
Dave
December 14th, 2010
5:57 pm
LWM,
The capital is owned by those who make it and work for it, not by the government.
If you don’t like that, there’s lots of other countries for you to choose from which ascribe to your beliefs.
CJ
December 14th, 2010
6:01 pm
Kyle,
You’re right. I am conflating wealth with income. Net worth (i.e., wealth) is a function of many factors, but first and foremost, income.
With regard to legalized theft, to whom does the wealth rightfully belong? In the case of inheritances, capital gains, and dividend income, the money saved by those who benefit primarily from such sources of income as a result of our inequitable tax system rightfully belongs to the taxpayers who must pay higher rates to offset the resulting revenue losses. With regard to over-compensation, the wealth rightfully belongs to the owners of the company and/or employees who helped grow the organization, but were disproportionately under-compensated.
In addition, to say that workers are subsidizing lower rates for investment or inheritance does NOT imply that there is a natural level of rates for those activities. What it does imply is that effective rates for income from work, generally speaking, are higher than the rates from income arising out of investments and inheritance income. Again, that’s legalized theft.
Finally, when you reference a “natural level of tax rates” and ask “how much money,” you seem to be talking in absolutes. I’m talking in relative terms. And in this case the case of over-compensation, I’m talking about real free markets. Executives who sit on each other’s boards, hire compensation consultants with conflicts-of-interest, and rig the political system with their abundance of “speech,” are not earning their compensation through free-market means. This method of income is more consistent with what one might find in a banana republic.
My notion of victimology isn’t twisted if it’s true (and it is).
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/12/12/banks_donations_soared_as_brown_negotiated/?page=1
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
6:01 pm
Dave: “Try making sense sometime. It helps people understand what the hell you’re saying.”
You’re right. The second quote should have been left out.
The point is: why are you defending an economic system that is doing such a poor job of providing decent work for so many hard-working people even as a speculation machine spins out of control and consists of nothing but numbers moving around?
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
6:05 pm
Dave: “The capital is owned by those who make it and work for it, not by the government.”
Work has nothing to do with it. Those who own the capital generally are content to let others do the actual work – hence the difference between the term worker and capital-owner.
And by the way, government has everything to do with it – by acting as a framework that makes contracts enforceable, just to start with.
“If you don’t like that, there’s lots of other countries for you to choose from which ascribe to your beliefs.”
Nah, I like it just fine here thanks.
Kyle Wingfield
December 14th, 2010
6:13 pm
“In the case of inheritances, capital gains, and dividend income, the money saved by those who benefit primarily from such sources of income as a result of our inequitable tax system rightfully belongs to the taxpayers who must pay higher rates to offset the resulting revenue losses.”
So, you’re saying the money really belongs to the government, which is really a way of saying the money belongs to those people who want the government to redistribute it to them. I won’t bother to ask what the rent-seekers did to merit the redistribution.
Or why this would be more “equitable,” given that those people whose money you envy already pay more a disproportionate share of the taxes relative even to their large incomes (e.g. the top 5% earn about a third of gross income reported to the IRS [which doesn't include existing government wealth transfers] but pay nearly 60% of the taxes).
I would, however, love to pinpoint the moment that arguing against other people’s envy became labeled as “greed.”
CJ
December 14th, 2010
7:00 pm
“So, you’re saying the money really belongs to the government,…given that those people whose money you envy…”
No Kyle, I’m not saying these things at all. You’re inferences are bizarre, and it appears that rather than considering what I’ve written, you’d rather regurgitate talk radio’s misrepresentation of liberalism.
I’m saying, for example, that whether the public sector amounts to 25 percent of GDP or 2 percent of GDP, if the person who inherits $5,000,000 doesn’t pay any taxes on that inheritance income (part of the Obama/McConnell deal), then others necessarily must pay more than they otherwise would.
And this liberal doesn’t envy people who engage in legalized theft, or their wealth, anymore than you envy wealth attained at the point of gun or as a result of a illegal fraudulent acts. You don’t envy those who got away with it, do you Kyle? I hope you’re not projecting here.
Question Authority
December 14th, 2010
7:20 pm
Left Wing Management – Do you even read what you write before you reply??
You said “The only thing that can clearly be judged a “complete failure” is the neoliberal economics you’re touting. Period.” And then you go on to criticise some amalgam of some crap that I never even mentioned. I mentioned Austrian economics, which is neither neoliberal nor something that is currently in effect and therefore “judgeable”.
If you actually knew something about Austrian economics, you would know that it has nothing to do with Pinochet, Reagan, or any other elected stooge that supports the giant state apparatus.
And as for Capitalism, you do specifically say that it has entered a “terminal stage”. I don’t know what your definition of terminal is, but I think of near death. Again I say that there is no capitalism to die since true free market capitalism is not currently be practiced anywhere and hasn’t been for at least 100 or more years.
And it is quite simple to say that neither the Keynesians nor the Austrians can provide clear guidance since you offer no supporting evidence for your statement.
The Austrian school is very clear about the business cycle and its causes. It begins with the manipulation of interest rates and the money supply by the central bank (the Federal Reserve). These false signals that are sent into the market cause misallocation of resources and capital into unsustainable investments and projects. Since the interest rate is not dependent on savings in a fiat monetary system run by the Fed, these artificially low interest rates incorrectly signal that there is high enough savings to sustain the long term investment that lower rates generally encourage. The lower cost of money and the expansion of the money supply both generate a false bubble in the economy that can manifest in various industries, markets, etc. generally based on government involvement (the source of the money). Ultimately these unsustainable bubbles MUST burst in order to correct the malinvestment. Misguided Keynesian economics says to keep printing money and lowering interest rates in order to reinflate the bubble (the stupid things they are trying now), but the Austrians say that it is these very behaviors that are the root cause and must be stopped in order to prevent the continuing ups and downs of the government-created business cycles.
I don’t know. I may not have explained it perfectly, but that pretty much sums up exactly where we are, how we got there, and a prescription to get back to sanity. Yes, there will and MUST be some pain. Malinvestment and debt must be liquidated. It is unsustainable and you just can’t work magic with economic realities. You cannot repeal the laws of economics by majority vote or by wishing real hard.
If anyone reading wants more information, check out www(dot)mises(dot)org or just search for The Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
Left wing management
December 14th, 2010
7:20 pm
CJ: “if the person who inherits $5,000,000 doesn’t pay any taxes on that inheritance income (part of the Obama/McConnell deal), then others necessarily must pay more than they otherwise would. ”
OR, it of course means that government must be shrunk. Don’t forget that.
gog
December 14th, 2010
7:22 pm
existance is temporary
MrLiberty
December 14th, 2010
7:28 pm
There is certainly no problem with socialist clowns like Left wing management continuing to live in this country, but unfortunately they are allowed, even encouraged to vote. There was a time when the constitution was supposed to protect the rest of us from him and his ilk. Folks like him are harmless on their own. They don’t have the numbers or the courage to come to our homes and demand our incomes to support their causes. As with all totalitarian leaning types, they employ the power of the state to steal on their behalf and ease their conscience with “laws” and other government tools they can hide behind.
But at some point, certainly at least in 1913 when the Wilson administration claimed that the 16th amendment has been properly ratified (check out the book “The Law that Never Was”) and from that point forward, the government has basically said that our income is their money and that they will decide how much we get to keep. Before that the relationship was completely different.
If you cannot see that the income tax is slavery to the government, then you need to ponder it a bit harder. The theft of the fruits of one’s labor is slavery, even if you get to go home at night or get to keep some portion of it.
Linda
December 14th, 2010
7:32 pm
The emperor’s new clothes have been removed once & for all. Those of us he considers unfit, stupid or incompetent see him as naked as a jay bird. He is holding himself up proudly as the socialist/progressive we deem is evil in American society.
orson
December 14th, 2010
7:40 pm
capitalism is a house of cards… marx is the truth, the light
Linda
December 14th, 2010
7:40 pm
My comment @ 7:32 was intended to refer to the emperor commenting on this blog, but take it anywhere you want, if it applies. Talk about coming out of the closet!
mrsliberty
December 14th, 2010
7:49 pm
mrliberty,
lay off the egg nog
Intown
December 14th, 2010
10:18 pm
1) You almost lost me after the words: “foxnews.com”
2) Could Republicans complete obstinance (to the point of frequent use of filibuster and extreme litigousness) on the need for regulatory reform on healthcare, finance, and the environment be contributing to the regulatory uncertainty that is allegedly causing the alleged temp job phenonmenon?
Double Standard
December 15th, 2010
8:42 am
I have better things to do than read the worthless ajc Kyle. As for the banks that have failed being new and small, that does not preclude theft by deception being a major factor in the bank’s failure. When Republicans run the regulatory agencies, they ignore theft by deception, rather they call it “un-leasing of animal spirits.” See the Savings and Loan crisis under Ronnie Ray Gun aka RR. Its the same old story, Republicans steal everything that is no nailed down, then blame high taxes for their own theft. Also note the pork barrel spending by both repukes and dummycrats in the current bills in congress. Theft by any other name is still theft.
Left wing management
December 15th, 2010
9:48 am
MrLiberty: “There is certainly no problem with socialist clowns like Left wing management continuing to live in this country”
And of course you’re appointing to yourself the authority to make such a judgment, this very authority being assumed by you on non-democratic grounds.
DebbieDoRight
December 15th, 2010
9:57 am
Linda jobs have been disappearing, you mean you haven’t noticed the jobs being outsourced since 2002? You didn’t notice Saturn going under, The Big Three letting jobs go, IBM sending jobs overseas and cutting jobs here, even WALL STREET has been letting people go. You haven’t noticed this? Hmmmmmm perhaps the old adage of the “blind leading the blind” is correct in this scenario. We had Dubya, (blind), leading people like Linda, (blind), around; all he had to do was put up banners that said “Mission Accomplished” and Linda believed that it was true.
It is what it isn't, that is, it's not what it is.
December 15th, 2010
10:55 am
One stimulus package in the Obama economy is worth two in the Bush.
Bush caused this catastrophe and Clyde Wingnut thinks voters are stupid enough to blame Obama. (He’s probably right).
Americans have a four second attention span, and that’s why clods like Clyde get away with their lies.
Linda
December 15th, 2010
10:57 am
Debbie @ 9:57, Just ignore the facts from the Dept. of Labor. We have always lost jobs & companies, but new jobs & companies appear. It’s net jobs that determine the employment rates. Anyway you figure it, the unemployment rate today under Obama is over twice as high as it was during the Bush adm.
Your insulting me does not give you any credibility.
Linda
December 15th, 2010
11:01 am
It is @ 10:55, If Bush caused this catastrophe, why did Clinton brag about his adm.’s contributions to it (before it crashed) & admit that Bush & the Reps. tried to prevent it & why did the New York Times predict it in 1999?
Eric
December 15th, 2010
11:08 am
I’d have been glad to have a stimulus temp job–but where were these posted (if at all)? Anyone know?
Left wing management
December 15th, 2010
11:26 am
Linda: “Just ignore the facts from the Dept. of Labor.”
Why are we quibbling over which administration is more responsible for more
The implosion of the economy in 2008 – on the Bush administration’s watch – was systemic and unprecedented in the past 75 years. Even the figures from the previous years are heavily skewed because of external events (the 9/11 attacks) and systemic instabilities (a technology bubble). Unemployment numbers more or less reflect these factors, regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is president. The 10% rate we see now is an index of a market economy in crisis – with years, if not decades, of overproduction and excess capacity and built on the sands of this or that bubble product – be it technology or housing.
Quibbling over whether Bush II or Obama has done more to address employment using yearly unemployment figures alone gets us nowhere.
Linda
December 15th, 2010
12:40 pm
Left @ 11:26, This discussion began with another liberal insinuating that the Bush tax cuts didn’t create jobs. I quoted the Labor Dept. with a comment @ 2:27 that refutes this. After the tax cuts, unemployment went to a 38-year low.
(Yes, the implosion of the economy happened during the Bush adm. which Clinton admitted that Bush & the Reps. tried to prevent. 9/11 also happened during the Bush adm., but that does not mean that he was flying the planes.)
The economic recession is quite complicated & evolved over several years, but it’s extremely important to understand how it began & what contributed to it. The catalyst was the Dems. forcing the GSEs in the ’90s to make subprime loans in the name of Affordable Housing.
Reducing the unemployment rate, the cost of unemployment compensation & other govt. assistance (contributing to the deficit), the number of people without employer-provided health care insurance, etc. & therefore improving the economy is the major concern today. How to accomplish it is a debate, not quibbling. Recognizing that Keynesian economics under progressives have never worked in the history of our country nor any other country & that tax rate reductions along with govt. spending reductions under Reps. have always worked gets us there.
What state does Saxby Chambliss work for?
December 15th, 2010
1:31 pm
Saxby Chambliss has an multiple million earmark in the Federal budget for next year to fund an Alabama company! Who does he work for? Alabama not Georgia?
retiredds
December 15th, 2010
2:23 pm
I am having some amnesia here, could someone tell me how much the brokered tax/stimulus deal that Obama crafted with the “let’s reduce the deficit” Republicans add to the deficit?
Aisha Miller
December 16th, 2010
5:48 am
Hello friends.
I am doing MBA. I need a Temporary Job. I will do any kind of job. At this movement I can’t work for full time due to exams, so I need a temporary job. I have read about temporary job in one site at http://www.temporaryjobs.org/Find-Temporary-Jobs.html What do you think about this page? Thank you for sharing valuable post.