tagged w/ job creation
-
When the Republican Caucus cloistered at Dracula’s castle in Transylvania after the 2010 elections, they decided the utter ruination of the American economy would be just the thing to ensure this Kenyan pretender would not be reelected.
Therefore, the Republican reaction to the better-than-expected job news Friday and the fact that unemployment had dropped for the 5th month in a row was hardly an occasion for celebration. Let’s sample some GOP reaction.
http://deepbrainmedia.com/2012/02/04/republican-reaction-to-fridays-good-news-on-employment/When the Republican Caucus cloistered at Dracula’s castle in Transylvania after... more
-
-
Just this week, the PERI institute in Boston released a study showing that there is a tremendous amount of excess dollars sitting around in bank accounts doing nothing, something the campaign to elect Mike Ballantine 2012 has been saying for months. In fact, they identify roughly the same amount as we do and propose providing incentives to get banks to invest $1.4 trillion in the economy to create 19 million jobs. That is more aggressive than our plan which stipulates an investment of $2 trillion to create 20 million jobs. Either way, both plans show a reasonable approach to the unemployment problem facing our nation. Both plans follow the same approach and would not only reduce unemployment but also restore tax revenues to pre-recession levels. Unless we choose to adopt this type of approach our nation will continue to languish in insolvency. Those that argue that we cannot afford to borrow, fail to grasp the enormity of creating 20 million jobs and what is required. As long as the free-market is going to remain on the sidelines, the needs of the American worker will go unmet. Please read this plan and listen to Bob Pollin explain it to Paul Jay at the Real News.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OIbTSAGPOM)
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/PERI_19Million.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75296147/Ending-the-American-Winter-Ver-2-0
www.mikeballantine2012.orgJust this week, the PERI institute in Boston released a study showing that there is a... more
-
-
Mr. Van Der Pol understands at abase level why Americans support OWS, distrust corporations, financial institutions and government. "Job creation is done by small businesses, large corporations and individual consumers. So how can we avoid taxing “job creators”?" Corporations and their money have driven our steady loss of jobs, and with it our wealth, while financial institutions have siphoned off money from the economy in the name of "creating" wealth.
By Jim Van Der Pol
Bitter indeed to hear is the mantra of the uninformed that we cannot raise taxes on the “job creators”. Especially is this so when it comes from right within the confines of one’s own family, and from a person who together with his wife, never in his working life cashed a paycheck that was not from the federal government. There can be no more blinding disease than the current epidemic of libertarianism, based as it is upon our traditional careless American individualism.
Back here in the reality-based community, we know better. We are all job creators. We do that by how we live, including what we buy and do not buy. An economy that restricts my income to the point where I cannot afford to buy, even sometimes to buy necessities, cuts down on my ability to create jobs. But there are more important matters than silly political spats about taxes and “job creators.”
There is the matter of what kind of jobs we create and where, which is a critical issue as we come to understand that our nation’s trade deficit is the real issue and not the overhyped kerfuffle over our government’s deficit spending.
Our little farm, one tenth the size in acreage of that of most of our neighbors, is an example. Just big enough as a crop farm to help support an individual that works at a full time job in town, we have been able to build it into an enterprise that supports four full time adult workers, plus several more in the processing business we contract work with.
This is in addition to the usual jobs created by the production and provision of the goods and services needed and purchased by any thriving business. How did it happen?
We became a livestock farm based upon grazing and pasture production, cutting back sharply on the number of acres in row crop production. And we started marketing our products. The libertarian would say we created our own wealth out of our own gumption, ambition and work. There is a bit of truth in that, but only a bit. We did see an opportunity and took it. And it has involved hard work and determination on our part.
But the essential fact is still that a certain number of people decided to create the kind of economic development they wanted by changing how they spent their food dollar. We responded to their desire for meats that taste good and were responsibly produced.
They wanted to know they could talk to the farmer who produced their purchase, if they chose and see how the production was done. They wanted a healthy and vital rural area populated by an increasing number of small farms, and our success with supplying their needs is beginning to spill over to some of the smaller farms in the area because we must have help producing the number of animals needed. We are able to offer a premium hog market to an increasing number of other farmers because our customers have decided that that quality counts, as does the social and natural environment.
This willingness to allow other values into what has been for us in America a purely quantitative decision involving commodities and math could apply to much of our economic life. For example, it is said that the response to Obama’s stimulus was disappointing because our economy is leaky. What this means is that many Americans will run down to the Wal-Mart with any extra money that falls into their hands to spend it on imported Chinese stuff, benefiting international corporations and China in terms of its balance of trade with us, but our own economy very little. On the other hand, what economic activity would result if we insisted upon service with our purchases, and that the item be durable in the first place? Or that it be produced here, and that it have a minimal impact upon the natural world, and fair to the people working at its production?
It is not just consumers. Jeffrey Immelt, business world heavyweight, CEO of General Electric and (most incredibly) Obama’s man for sparking American job creation was heard whining on television to Lesley Stahl that Americans should be cheering for his company. Germans, he said, are very supportive of their own corporations. So are the Japanese.
Why not us? Indeed, why not? Well, German corporations don’t export jobs from Germany to Asia at anything like the rate that GE sheds American jobs. But the reason they don’t is the key to the issue. German corporations have representation on their boards of directors from labor and the communities in which they operate. These are not token positions, but carry with them real power.
German corporations are, you might say, German for a reason. Does Mr. Immelt wish to extensively modify the charter under which his corporation operates to make it more German in character? I sure do. Maybe we could put together a political effort, he and I.
Job creation is done by small businesses, large corporations and individual consumers. So how can we avoid taxing “job creators”? Our best long-term route to improving the economy is to allow our values to drive our economic activities. It is best not to hold our breath while the corporate elite find their values, much less learn to apply them to their corporations. But we don’t have to. Like any important change, we can begin with the guy in the mirror.
Jim Van Der Pol writes and farms near Kerkhoven, Minn.
From The Progressive Populist, November 15, 2011Mr. Van Der Pol understands at abase level why Americans support OWS, distrust... more
-
-
kvb1
-
added this
-
3 months ago
- |
-
-
In response to the proposed “Buffett rule,” which would guarantee that no millionaire pays a lower tax rate than middle-class families, conservatives in Congress love to claim that raising taxes on the rich would ruin small businesses. They are wrong. Small-business owners overwhelmingly are not millionaires, and the vast majority of millionaires do not make their millions from small business. Implementing the Buffett rule would have almost no effect on small businesses because such a tiny fraction of small-business owners are millionaires.
The RIPublicans and the Tea Party like to spin that job creation will end completely if we increase taxes on the millionaires and corporations. Not so. Millionaire do not start up small businesses and small business do not finance millionaires. They both can grow to become corporations and millionaires, but it won't start out that way.In response to the proposed “Buffett rule,” which would guarantee that no... more
-
-
kvb1
-
added this
-
4 months ago
- |
-
-
Las Vegas has seen everything...at least we thought so until tonight's CNN Republican Primary debate. Getting married by an Elvis impersonator, paying money to watch midgets on a trapeze, or passing out in your own vomit behind the Luxor hotel can't even match the ugliness and generally tackiness of tonight's Teapublican freak show.
http://veracitystew.com/2011/10/18/sin-city-showdown-the-las-vegascnn-debate-recap-video/Las Vegas has seen everything...at least we thought so until tonight's CNN... more
-
-
-
Washington (CNN) -- In the fall of 1984, I was a student living in Boston. A high-tax manufacturing state, Massachusetts had been hit hard by the economic troubles of the 1970s. But now suddenly there were signs in every shop window: "Help wanted." Or: "Help wanted!" Or even: "Help wanted!!!"
One afternoon on my way to the subway, I paused in front of one of these signs in the window of a restaurant that catered to students. I stood maybe 10 seconds, maybe 12. The manager bolted out, put his hand on my shoulder: "Hey -- you want a job?"
That's what a strong economic recovery looks like.
Technically speaking, the U.S. economy is recovering right now. GDP growth has been positive since the summer of 2009. Employment is growing. If you like, you can say the recession is over.
But don't say it too loud. With 13.5 million people out of work -- 6.1 million out of work for 27 weeks or more -- the odds are high that one of them may hear and take offense.
Isn't it weird that...neither of the two great U.S. political parties is offering a plan to do anything about the job situation?
--David Frum
Globalization crushing middle class? Ryan: 'No more gimmicks' Ryan budget plan fair? Stockman: Ryan plan 'whiffs entirely'
RELATED TOPICS
Economic Recovery
Recessions and Depressions
U.S. Federal Reserve
U.S. Republican Party
The recovery is weak, and job creation is slow. Everybody knows that. But here's something that we don't know, or anyway don't think about enough: Isn't it weird that in this dismal economic situation, neither of the two great U.S. political parties is offering a plan to do anything about the job situation?
This is a democracy, right? The parties compete for power by offering solutions to problems that people care about, isn't that the theory? Yet here is the thing that people care about the very, very most -- and from the two parties there is ... what?
The Republicans have coalesced around U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan.
That plan has four main elements:
-- It would impose large cuts in Medicaid for the poor right away.
-- It would impose very large cuts on other domestic spending programs.
-- It would cut the top rate of federal income tax from the current 36% to 25%, while pledging to close unspecified loopholes.
-- Starting 10 years from now, it would reduce Medicare benefits for people now younger than 55 by potentially more than half.
Ryan's plans are bold. And they made bold promises. According to a Heritage Foundation study commissioned by Ryan, the plan would reduce unemployment to 6.4% next year, 4.0% in 2015 and 2.8% by 2021. (The rate of 2.8% was last seen during the Korean War, when millions of young men were conscripted into the armed forces.)
Alas, the Heritage projections were derided by other economists and eventually quietly withdrawn by Heritage itself.
Well, we all sometimes get our math wrong. But here's the strange thing: the invalidation of Heritage's job predictions has had no impact whatsoever on Republican advocacy of the Ryan plan.
Suppose I presented you with a plan to land an astronaut on Mars. You check my numbers and discover a mistake: my trajectory will instead send the astronaut hurtling into outer space. If I answer, "Well let's use that trajectory anyway," wouldn't you conclude that I was less than totally committed to the Mars mission? That perhaps I had some other goal in mind instead?
But at least Republicans have a goal in mind.
What about the Democrats? From the party of the president, we hear no job message at all. The president instituted his job program in 2009: His big stimulus plan, backed by the Federal Reserve's active monetary creation. Last year, the president offered a supplementary measure. He agreed to Republican renewal of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 plus a partial remission of Social Security payroll taxes.
Obviously, the results of those policies has been underwhelming, to put it mildly. On Sunday, The New York Times reported that the latest round of Fed easing -- $600 billion of direct money creation -- has not produced substantial results, in the opinion of most economists.
Plan A and Plan B have failed.
So what's the administration's Plan C? It seems to be wait and hope. The waiting will be long. At current trends, it will be years before all the involuntarily unemployed return to work. And hope is never a plan.
The administration does however have a political plan: Blast the Ryan plan. Since the Ryan plan is highly politically vulnerable, the blasting will likely hurt the GOP and help President Obama. The blasting will not, however, do much for the unemployed. But then we've all sort of given up on them, haven't we?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/25/frum.jobless/index.html?hpt=T2Washington (CNN) -- In the fall of 1984, I was a student living in Boston. A high-tax... more
-
-
People who want to see the budget cut are people who are advocating throwing people out of work, it's that simple," says Dean Baker of the pressure from conservatives on Obama's budget--pressure, it appears, that Obama is conceding to as he brags that discretionary spending will be the lowest since Eisenhower's administration. So Obama's budget includes cuts to infrastructure, education, and more, and for Republicans, that's still not enough. Dean joins us from D.C. via Skype to talk about what the president should be arguing as the budget fight heats up.
Cutting the budget did not work in 1938 as the RIPublicans pushed then, and the country fell back into a recession. Government spending is the driver of the economy when corporations refuse to part with their profits during slow economic times.People who want to see the budget cut are people who are advocating throwing people... more
-
-
kvb1
-
added this
-
11 months ago
- |
-
I have mentioned the Modern Money Theory proposal of direct job creation in a couple comments/posts. Real life example provided here. A pertinent excerpt:
"While in the U.S. Congress keeps extending unemployment benefits, the Argentine government chose to put the unemployed to work. When our politicians forecast a jobless recovery ahead, policy makers south of the equator speak of reaching full employment by creating and safeguarding jobs by private and public means."
http://www.newdeal20.org/2009/11/25/navigating-the-jobs-crisis-direct-job-creation-lessons-from-argentina-6624/I have mentioned the Modern Money Theory proposal of direct job creation in a couple... more
-
-
ze
-
added this
-
12 months ago
- |
-
It doesn't matter if you're a Mom and Pop business or the most mega of mega multinationals, you want a tax break. But, if some big businesses can be "too big to fail", can't some small business be "too small to survive" regardless of the breaks they get?It doesn't matter if you're a Mom and Pop business or the most mega of mega... more
-
-
Yesterday we found out that there was going to be some leftover money from TARP and that Obama wanted to put it to job growth. He gave a speech today outlining some plans. Among the highlights? Assisting small businesses, putting more money to infrastructure and encouraging investments in clean energy. He also called on businesses to do their part for job creation as well, saying there was only so much government could do.He'll meet with lawmakers tomorrow to get some of these plans rolling.
Here's the President in his own words.
Recently on the Current News Blog:
- Photography in conflict: Jeff Antebi covers the Afghanistan election
- Iran students' day of protest
- Copenhagen backgrounder - A roundup of pre-conference reading
- Will TARP cuts mean a jobs program? - Real Recovery
- Obama loses fans in Turkey over AfghanistanYesterday we found out that there was going to be some leftover money from TARP and... more
-
-
The Treasury is estimating that the original cost of the TARP program for banks (estimated over ten years) can be revised down by about $200 billion. Does that mean the President will want to use that money for jobs?
The White House has been under pressure to tame the $1.4 trillion budget deficit, which has ballooned as the U.S. borrows vast sums of money. But with unemployment at 10%, the administration is also under pressure to find ways to create new jobs. Lowering deficit projections could help alleviate concerns that a new jobs bill would further inflate the deficit.
November saw the unemployment rate fall slightly (an estimated .2 percent) and though that was a welcome surprise for economists, it still means a lot of folks need jobs. That said though, it's not like the TARP money was already spent - it was just an estimated cost. It's likely any jobs program will face a lot of criticism from those worried about a bulging federal deficit.
The President is expected to make an announcement tomorrow.
Recently on the Current News Blog:
- Obama loses fans in Turkey over Afghanistan
- Meet Zouhair al Jezairy, my new Iraqi journalist friend
- Bhopal: 25 years later
- What's news in Turkey?
- 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan: The right choice?The Treasury is estimating that the original cost of the TARP program for banks... more
-
-
US President Barack Obama has announced a $3.8tn (£2.4tn) budget plan for 2011, which includes increased spending for job creation, but cuts in other areas.
LINK : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8490522.stmUS President Barack Obama has announced a $3.8tn (£2.4tn) budget plan for 2011,... more
-
-
US President Barack Obama has announced a $3.8tn (£2.4tn) budget plan for 2011, which includes increased spending for job creation, but cuts in other areas.
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8490522.stmUS President Barack Obama has announced a $3.8tn (£2.4tn) budget plan for 2011,... more
-
-
Yesterday we found out that there was going to be some leftover money from TARP and that Obama wanted to put it to job growth. He gave a speech today outlining some plans. Among the highlights? Assisting small businesses, putting more money to infrastructure and encouraging investments in clean energy. He also called on businesses to do their part for job creation as well, saying there was only so much government could do.He'll meet with lawmakers tomorrow to get some of these plans rolling.
FROM THE NEWS BLOG: http://blogs.current.com/news/2009/12/08/obama-lays-out-plan-for-jobs-meeting-lawmakers-tomorrow/Yesterday we found out that there was going to be some leftover money from TARP and... more
-
-
-
Vice President Joe Biden is joined by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maryland Governor Martin OMalley as he reports on the success of the Recovery Act in creating or saving over a million jobs so far. October 30, 2009.Vice President Joe Biden is joined by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and... more
-
-
Larry Summers, the president's leading economic adviser, can identify in retrospect the moment when the world financial crisis eased. It was in April, when the former Treasury secretary realized that he was no longer nervously awakening at 4 in the morning to check the Asian markets.
Now in mid-summer, as the Dow Jones industrial average crossed the 9000 mark for the first time since Barack Obama was inaugurated, it is easy for most voters to forget the white-knuckle fears of economic collapse. As Summers said in a Thursday afternoon interview, "The combination of complexity of the economy and the quality of human nature -- which for evolutionary reasons smoothes over excruciating memories to make us all happier -- has led to a situation where people forget just how close to the edge the economy was last fall and early this winter."
"When the Dow was around 6,000, we made clear that our goal was to develop economic policy based on the long-run fundamentals – trying to put in place productive capacity," he recalled. "And that you couldn't judge the policies based on day-to-day market moves. That was the right and responsible approach." Summers' implicit message is that the current jump in share prices should embarrass the administration's critics, who painted a dire portrait of the Obama economy based on a 6600 Dow in March.
In a speech last week at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Summers pointed out that the current 9.5 percent unemployment rate was "about 1 to 1.5 percentage points more than would normally be attributable to the contraction in the [economy]." In other words, something is screwy with the standard forecasting models, since layoffs have been much more severe than would be expected with the decline in the economic output, or Gross National Product (GNP). This was a major reason why the administration's economic forecast in January had erroneously predicted that unemployment would not rise above about 8 percent this year.
In his Thursday phone interview with me, Summers amplified his remarks about the breakdown of the traditional relationship between GNP and the jobless rate. "What's noteworthy about this recession is that GNP over the last six months has been only marginally worse than people expected it would be in January, while we are experiencing higher than expected unemployment," he said. "Normally in economic downturns, productivity decreases as firms keep workers employed even as the amount of work declines. In this recession, as in the last one, productivity has actually increased."
Traditionally, as the economy gathers momentum after a recession, jobs are slow to bounce back, a lagging indicator in economic lingo. What is difficult to figure this time around – and Summers acknowledges that there is not yet enough data to make a determination – is how reluctant businesses will be to hire new workers. It can be argued that because the layoffs were so much faster and graver than the economic models would suggest, the recovery in jobs will be equally accelerated. But there is also the more alarming prospect that companies are growing adept at doing more with fewer workers (the equivalent of an old-fashioned speed-up on the assembly line) – and that this largely may be a jobless recovery.Larry Summers, the president's leading economic adviser, can identify in... more
-
