I don't think anyone really knows how truly fucked this economy is.

Take a look into living conditions in India, that will give a clue.

But, but, but.....I thought the recession was over???? Does this mean we're not gonna get more "free" shit?

Wouldn't it be great if our Federal Gummit could break from the current climate of a capitalist system makeover and policy uncertainty and throw a bone to the jobs mill?
Having just endured a rapid economic contraction, fueled in part by the exorbitant fuel prices of 2008 and the resulting shortage of cash flow to buy stuff and pay bills by huge number of small businesses and American's who live and operate paycheck to paycheck, our gummit overlords have signaled to those wounded employers that not only is it a near certainty that their operating expenses will go up even farther but, their mandated operational regulations and requirements are completely up in the air and heading strait for their accounts payable department.
Is it any surprise that these struggling and surviving businesses are in a holding pattern?
Is it any surprise that some are restraining themselves from rebuild or expansion and and have instead tightened their belts and piled up some cash or assets, just in case this recession continues or worsens, combined with their preparation for whatever new mandates our gummit overlords conjure up?
Have any of you heard one word from any of these monomaniacal, narcissistic overlords of what the gummit plans to do to enable and encourage these small businesses to rebound?
A trillion bucks to banks, insurance companies and car companies hasn't convinced too many small businesses that gummit is clearing any paths for them.

Just keep shipping jobs overseas and we can turn our recession into a full blown depression. Claims that we need to cut taxes are ridiculous, we've done that in several large increments and each time it makes matters worse. Increasing taxes high enough to compel business owners to put profits back into businesses will create more jobs than allowing profit taking with little penalty. Raise the tax on capital gains so that the stock market doesn't absorb all profits where they employ few people. We have looked at economics upside down for thirty years, George H. W. Bush was right when he labeled REaganomics as Voo doo economics.

It is appearing the CBO was right and doing something is going to create bigger problems than if nothing had been done.

"Paying for Programs

"The first step is to stop making those deficits worse" by enforcing pay-as-you-go legislation so that "any new tax or entitlement" programs are paid for, and by adopting an overall of the U.S. health-care system that doesn't add to the deficit, he said.

"I know there are going to be some who say this report proves we can't afford health reform," Orszag said. "I think that has it backwards," because savings must be squeezed from the system.

Even with economic conditions worse that originally forecast, Romer said "we do expect positive GDP growth by the end of this year" for the fourth quarter, as the economy reaches "a turning point." This is in line with 94 percent of Blue Chip economists, according to Orszag."

"Just keep shipping jobs overseas and we can turn our recession into a full blown depression"

So you're calling for protectionist legislation? perhaps raising Tarrif's on foreign goods? foreign services?

"Increasing taxes high enough to compel business owners to put profits back into businesses..."

How does higher taxes compel besiness owners to put profits back into businesses? How high is "high enough"?

"Raise the tax on capital gains so that the stock market doesn't absorb all profits where they employ few people."

Again, how high does the tax need to be to keep the stock market from absorbing all the profits? BTW, I'm not a part of the stock market, but I'd like to keep some of the capital gains from the sale of my house. I'm going to need it to suppliment Social Security.

"Just keep shipping jobs overseas and we can turn our recession into a full blown depression"

So you're calling for protectionist legislation? perhaps raising Tarrif's on foreign goods? foreign services?

Don't see the connection. Ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs out of America is not protectionist legislation. Charging more for foreign made goods would be.

Danni,
Some years ago, I was an installation sub-contractor for one of the largest residential cabinet companies in Metro Atlanta. Back in the day, there was nearly 30 installation sub-contractor companies installing millions of dollars in cabinets every month. The mother company was doing over 60 million dollars in business each year and employed nearly 100 design and administrative professionals. The owners made great money as did we, the installation companies. The only investments to my knowledge was in our 401k program. I'm fairly sure the owners invested their personal income in various stocks however, the company it's self did not, nor did we outsource any jobs overseas.
Some years after I left the Atlanta market and headed to the gulf coast, the rise in fuel costs began to take hold. It effected not only the ability of the cabinet company to perform the field operations it was responsible for and the installation companies ability to venture as far away from the warehouse to install the cabinets, it also effected the other trades involved in the construction process. It is assumed that they too did not outsource any jobs overseas nor did they dump huge amounts of unavailable cash into the stock market.
Eventually, as buyers were becoming scarce and the availability of cash to build on speculation was dwindling, each of these companies, including this once great powerhouse of a cabinet company, began to slow and contract.
Today, they are a shell of what they once were. I suspect that this story is not too uncommon throughout the U.S. It is widely accepted that most of the jobs in the U.S. are created and held by companies about this size and strength as well as the smaller companies that support them.
Given this scenario, do you believe that you plan of increased taxes would save companies like this?

"Don't see the connection. Ending tax breaks for companies that ship jobs out of America is not protectionist legislation."

I was just shooting in the dark to see what you were getting at. So what tax breaks would you end for companies? What would constitute sending a job overseas? just getting a part made thier? Hiring a US company that has foreign workers? etc?

Simply, I expect OSHA to do its job. Many companies are shipping jobs overseas to avoid safety requirements as well as wage requirements. Quite simply, I would tax any company headquartered in America that has the bulk of their work force overseas the balance of what they are saving through underpayment and OSHA avoidence. For example, if you average employee earns $1.00 per hour and the minimum in America is 6.50, then your company is taxed 5.50 for each hour that employee works and the money goes to fund unemployment and welfare in America.

"The first step is to stop making those deficits worse" by enforcing pay-as-you-go legislation so that "any new tax or entitlement" programs are paid for, and by adopting an overall of the U.S. health-care system that doesn't add to the deficit, he said.

The first step (after 10 trillion dollars).

"I know there are going to be some who say this report proves we can't afford health reform," Orszag said. "I think that has it backwards," because savings must be squeezed from the system.

We need to save 500 million by spending a trillion! This sounds just like the "2 billion in profit on the 300 billion still loaned out" that everyone was patting themselves on the back for a couple months ago.

Even with economic conditions worse that originally forecast, Romer said "we do expect positive GDP growth by the end of this year" for the fourth quarter, as the economy reaches "a turning point." This is in line with 94 percent of Blue Chip economists, according to Orszag."

Is this a press release or the opening monologue of The Tonight Show with Peter Orszag?

How does higher taxes compel besiness owners to put profits back into businesses? How high is "high enough"?

Paying wages to employees is a business deduction.

Two scenarios.... a business projected to earn $1,000,000 next year.

Scenario #1 ... top income tax bracket 90%.
Scenario #2 ... top income tax bracket 30%.

Which one would encourage the owner to cut wages and employees to the bare minimum to maximize the bonus he could take?

They'll get it right one day.

I don't think anyone really knows how truly fucked this economy is.

#1 | Posted by 726

I think everyone is familiar with a Ponzi Scheme by now. The Washington-Wall Street axis has been running a Ponzi Scheme for the past 95 years. Over that time, it's grown to size that staggers the mind. I mean hundreds of trillions of dollars of money on the books that don't exist.

I think the powers-that-be know this is going to blow. Those rumored FEMA prison camps are in case of riots. People are going to get pretty pissed off when they find out the banksters stole their money.

#3 | Posted by libertarian

That is so true--every bit of it.

And not only are businesses squirreling away their savings--regular folks--households are saving as well.

Everything being done by the czars and Obama is so wrong--everyone is scared shitless.

Look! Obama hires an AFL CIO guy to head the NY Fed Reserve job.

That's the mark of REAL CONfidence there!

Increasing taxes high enough to compel business owners to put profits back into businesses will create more jobs than allowing profit taking with little penalty. Raise the tax on capital gains so that the stock market doesn't absorb all profits where they employ few people. #4 Danni

Where on Earth do you get this stuff?

You are talking totalitarism--authoritarism!

That is trickle up poverty.

There will be NO businesses left with your "plan".

"Where on Earth do you get this stuff?"

Everywhere from Donald Trump to Dwight Eisenhower.

Higher rates make it more attractive to reinvest rather than siphon profits into your pocket. With a 40% marginal rate, a $1000 computer will only cost the owner $600 out of pocket. WIth a 20% marginal rate, it would cost $800.

"You are talking totalitarism--authoritarism!"

You obviously know the meaning of neither.

You are talking totalitarism[sic]--
authoritarism[sic]!

Murphy, what you know about totalitarianism wouldn't fit on the back of the We Tip card taped to your refrigerator.

#20 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-08-25 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Expert totalitarian

#21 | Posted by Ray at 2009-08-25 09:55 PM | Reply | Flag: Loves bosses

#22 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-08-25 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag: Hates work