denver0102
Well-known Member
Your thoughts on the new stimulus package that president Obama just signed?
-
CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.
New Stimulus Package...Will it work?
- Thread starter denver0102
- Start date
mitch768292
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Posts
- 474
- Reaction score
- 1
Shall we pray?
denver0102
Well-known Member
haha hmm well if you think prayer will be the solution to all the financial issues in this country then go for it! Personally i think millions of people in the US pray everyday for a better economy and we have all seen how far that has gotten us.....
slimvintage
BSB Addict
Obama keeps saying that it took us a while to get into the fix we're in and it will take time to get out. And some pundits keep saying that we may never know whether the plan actually worked or not, since market forces may overtake it and skew the results. Skew them up, not down, is what I'm asking God to do. Hear that God?
mitch768292
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Posts
- 474
- Reaction score
- 1
hey kid, that was a figure of speech.
tucsonjayce
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2008
- Posts
- 901
- Reaction score
- 0
Work/Not work
I believe as the President has said that recovery will be a long term thing. That's why I like the investment approach in the stimulus package. Too often Washington is mostly concerned with the quick fix or bandaid approach.
That being said, there will not be a recovery until the credit markets return to active status and the home mortgage crisis is resolved. These are the true underlying problems, the stimulus is just a bridge.
Prayers are good as long as we take action to complement those prayers.
Yours,
Jayce
I believe as the President has said that recovery will be a long term thing. That's why I like the investment approach in the stimulus package. Too often Washington is mostly concerned with the quick fix or bandaid approach.
That being said, there will not be a recovery until the credit markets return to active status and the home mortgage crisis is resolved. These are the true underlying problems, the stimulus is just a bridge.
Prayers are good as long as we take action to complement those prayers.
Yours,
Jayce
The economic balance is off all over the world not just in the USA. I think the stimulus package is going to help some. However; it may not be felt for a long time to come. One concern I have is that there are some things in the package that force all spending to remain on the purchase of US products. If foreign markets do the same thing; it will do nothing to balance the world economy. Instead it will do more to erode them all in general. There is a sound investment strategy in the package though. At least they tried to do something all we can do now is see it through.
I really think we should never have bailed out Wall Street. I think we should have fucked over the fat cats that came up with these lame brain schemes to make money by inflating home mortgage values and escalating foreclosures. They make no money in foreclosures. We should have forced them to refinance for a fair mortgage that was affordable.
I also think we should have force the big three auto manufactures into bankruptcy and or forced them to merge into other companies. I think some labor unions may have out lived their usefulness in this country. Yes, people would have gone bankrupt everywhere and nobody but maybe the Broke Straight Boys would have any money. However; newer jobs paying a fair wage would have been created and labor unions would have been forced out.
It kind of sucks knowing that because of a labor union some guy gets paid $75.00 per hour to use a hydraulic wrench to put lug nuts on a car and he doesn't even have a college degree.
However; I also think it is ridiculous that aguy with an MD get paid $100.00 just to see you for all of 10 min. to say take two asprin and call me in the morning if you are not any better. I realize they went to medical School for nearly 12 years and may owe $200,000.00 in debt. But they don't need to pay it all back in one year.
Last edited:
Markymark
BSB Addict
Touche' Jayman.
gwr19569424
Well-known Member
The one thing that pissed me off is when Obama broke on of his campaign promises not to raise taxes. Well that is just exactly what he did or wanting to do is to raise taxes on cigs to help fund the health care system. Fine then, tax the hell out of all booze products. I rest my case.
Gary
Gary
Gary, that is a good point too. I think the issue is nicotine helps make people more alert and booze makes people stupid. It is that mushroom affect I was talking about on another thread. In order to do what everthey want they need to keep us in the dark so they can feed us BS. Taxing booze would be counterproductive to that.
BrokeStraightBoys
BSB Owner
The stimulus package will help with extra updates for Broke Straight Boys hehe.
It is hard to say whether or not it will work. The stimulus package will create a lot of jobs but it is really hard to say how much stimulating it will actually do hehe.
Mark
It is hard to say whether or not it will work. The stimulus package will create a lot of jobs but it is really hard to say how much stimulating it will actually do hehe.
Mark
mitch768292
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Posts
- 474
- Reaction score
- 1
I agree.
I wonder how you pay down over 1,600.00 billion dollars in debt without raising taxes? As I said earlier, I am clueless why we bailed out Wall Street or the Big three automotive industries. When nobody is giving you money and or bonuses financial restructuring is always in order and you usually eliminate the idiots that got you in that predicament. Strange thing how when we borrow money we somehow need to pay it back.
I think the first thing we should have done was ask all of our debtors to repay the US with interest. Seems like a better idea than to keep writing IOU's that we can't make good on. I mean don't normal people go to jail for that kind of thing???
Good points Jayman. That first installment of the TARP money I'm afraid to say went mostly down the toilet. Those institutions just hoarded most of it, threw way some of it on corruption and still stiffed the taxpaying consumer in providing credit. That money was extorted from us. They said if you don't bail us out of from the consequences of our own greed, corruption and mismanagemnt we'll take the whole economy down with us. So we caved.
The issue of bonuses is a favorite topic nowadays. The convoluted logic and double talk that they give the public on this just bogles the mind. They use our money to give themselves bonuses that they didn't earn. There is no requirement that bonuses be linked to performance. They drove good companies into the ground and then paid themselves the same as if 2008 had been a banner year. They try to say that they have to reward their best employees so they don't quit and go somewhere else. Bullshit! If these top employees are so spectacular that they are indispensible then why is the company teetering on bankruptcy? They are lousey excuses for employees. They deserve to be fired or laid off, not rewarded. Just like we would be if we tried this at home in our own jobs. Show them the door! With no golden parachutes. Duh! In our jobs we don't get merit raises or bonuses without a performance review.
Let them quit and go somewhere else if they think they are not being compensated fairly. Good riddance... Any company that does hire them deserves whatever it gets. "Yeah I was CEO of a company that went bust. And I will bring all my skills and experience to work even harder for you." Yeah... Good luck with that. Very few top executives are going to quit in this economy anyway and risk being unemployed or at the botom of seniority in another company. The logic of all their petty justifications is so full of holes it's rediculous. They just think that we're stupid enough to buy it and are now seeing the backlash of that miscalculation.
As for unions' role in the current crisis there is plenty of blame to go around there too. The $75 an hour figure you cite is a bit inflated for a low skill worker. That is to say that it's less. At $75 an hour an employee would gross about $144,000 a year. That's not happening. I agree though that even the lower numbers are eye popping. The idea that a high school dropout can be working assmebly line or driving a forklift and making $25-$30 an hour plus generous health insurance, pension, sick time etc. is absurd. It's not a sustainable business model. And they (the Big 3) cannot count on being wards of the federal government, i.e. subsidies/nationalization indefinitely.
Last edited:
Tampa I stand Corrected Part 1
Ok, I stand corrected Tampa.
The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker
by Eric Boehlert
It's been one week since New York Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote that at General Motors, "the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."
The nugget was part of a column in which Sorkin argued that the government should not bail out the ailing Big Three automakers and that they instead should embrace bankruptcy.
Sorkin's point was that labor costs were out of control -- workers enjoyed "gold-plated benefits" -- and that during bankruptcy, the auto companies could address those runaway wages.
As I mentioned, it's been one week since the column appeared, which seems like plenty of time for Sorkin and the Times to correct the misleading $70-an-hour claim. But to date, there's been no clarification from the newspaper of record or from Sorkin himself.
And he isn't alone. Appearing on NPR last week, Times senior business correspondent Micheline Maynard told listeners that the "hourly wage" of Detroit's union autoworkers had been driven up "towards $80 an hour."
Somebody at the Times needs to clarify the record, because the average United Auto Workers member is not paid $80 an hour. Or even $70. Not even close. Yet (thanks to the Times?) the issue has become a central talking point in the unfolding national debate about the future of America's automotive industry.
Indeed, that $70-an-hour meme, actively promoted by the anti-union conservative media, has ricocheted around the traditional press as well as the political landscape, where it was picked up by congressional critics last week during hearings and used to argue against aiding GM, Ford, and Chrysler.
For the record, I'm not from Michigan, and I don't have friends or family members who work in the auto or auto-supply business. And honestly, I think there are compelling arguments on both sides of the question about whether to bail out the U.S. auto industry. So I'm genuinely torn on the issue. But what's obvious to me is that it's harmful to public discourse when the press, on such a central issue facing our country, fails to clearly state the facts and instead perpetuates misinformation with sloppy reporting -- reporting that seems to hold blue-collar workers to a different standard than their white-collar counterparts.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that automotive executives should return to Washington in coming weeks to "make their case, to the Congress and the American people," for a federal bailout. And as Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner for economics Paul Krugman wrote recently, "[M]aybe letting the auto companies die is the right decision, even though an auto industry collapse would be a huge blow to an already slumping economy. But it's a decision that should be taken carefully" [emphasis added].
But having the media echo conservative misinformation and bandy about urban-myth salary figures about allegedly high-on-the-hog GM workers does not constitute a careful review of the facts.
Question: Is the press just being sloppy on this issue of supposedly pampered autoworkers, or are there other elements in play? Because honestly, I've had trouble escaping the not-very-subtle elitist, get-a-load-of-this tone that has run through the media's misinformation on the topic; i.e., "These autoworkers get paid that?!"
Answer: No, they don't, so please stop reporting it. (And why has the press been so reticent to note that Big Three autoworkers recently made significant concessions to management?)
And it's funny, because I don't remember hearing much coverage in the press about AIG workers' six- and seven-figure salaries when the U.S. government announced it was bailing out the insurance giant. And I haven't seen or heard a single press reference to the annual salaries pocketed by Citigroup employees, even though the government has moved in quickly to bail the banking giant out of a hole its executives dug.
As Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) pointed out during congressional hearings last week, "There is apparently a cultural condition that's more ready to accept aid to a white-collar industry than the blue-collar industry, and that has to be confronted."
That cultural condition seems to extend to, and be embraced by, today's white-collar press corps.
Make no mistake: The $70-an-hour claim represents a classic case of conservative misinformation. It's also a very dangerous one. The falsehood about autoworkers is being spread at a crucial time, when a make-or-break public debate is taking place, a debate that could affect millions of American workers.
Ok, I stand corrected Tampa.
The media myth: Detroit's $70-an-hour autoworker
by Eric Boehlert
It's been one week since New York Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote that at General Motors, "the average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."
The nugget was part of a column in which Sorkin argued that the government should not bail out the ailing Big Three automakers and that they instead should embrace bankruptcy.
Sorkin's point was that labor costs were out of control -- workers enjoyed "gold-plated benefits" -- and that during bankruptcy, the auto companies could address those runaway wages.
As I mentioned, it's been one week since the column appeared, which seems like plenty of time for Sorkin and the Times to correct the misleading $70-an-hour claim. But to date, there's been no clarification from the newspaper of record or from Sorkin himself.
And he isn't alone. Appearing on NPR last week, Times senior business correspondent Micheline Maynard told listeners that the "hourly wage" of Detroit's union autoworkers had been driven up "towards $80 an hour."
Somebody at the Times needs to clarify the record, because the average United Auto Workers member is not paid $80 an hour. Or even $70. Not even close. Yet (thanks to the Times?) the issue has become a central talking point in the unfolding national debate about the future of America's automotive industry.
Indeed, that $70-an-hour meme, actively promoted by the anti-union conservative media, has ricocheted around the traditional press as well as the political landscape, where it was picked up by congressional critics last week during hearings and used to argue against aiding GM, Ford, and Chrysler.
For the record, I'm not from Michigan, and I don't have friends or family members who work in the auto or auto-supply business. And honestly, I think there are compelling arguments on both sides of the question about whether to bail out the U.S. auto industry. So I'm genuinely torn on the issue. But what's obvious to me is that it's harmful to public discourse when the press, on such a central issue facing our country, fails to clearly state the facts and instead perpetuates misinformation with sloppy reporting -- reporting that seems to hold blue-collar workers to a different standard than their white-collar counterparts.
Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that automotive executives should return to Washington in coming weeks to "make their case, to the Congress and the American people," for a federal bailout. And as Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner for economics Paul Krugman wrote recently, "[M]aybe letting the auto companies die is the right decision, even though an auto industry collapse would be a huge blow to an already slumping economy. But it's a decision that should be taken carefully" [emphasis added].
But having the media echo conservative misinformation and bandy about urban-myth salary figures about allegedly high-on-the-hog GM workers does not constitute a careful review of the facts.
Question: Is the press just being sloppy on this issue of supposedly pampered autoworkers, or are there other elements in play? Because honestly, I've had trouble escaping the not-very-subtle elitist, get-a-load-of-this tone that has run through the media's misinformation on the topic; i.e., "These autoworkers get paid that?!"
Answer: No, they don't, so please stop reporting it. (And why has the press been so reticent to note that Big Three autoworkers recently made significant concessions to management?)
And it's funny, because I don't remember hearing much coverage in the press about AIG workers' six- and seven-figure salaries when the U.S. government announced it was bailing out the insurance giant. And I haven't seen or heard a single press reference to the annual salaries pocketed by Citigroup employees, even though the government has moved in quickly to bail the banking giant out of a hole its executives dug.
As Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) pointed out during congressional hearings last week, "There is apparently a cultural condition that's more ready to accept aid to a white-collar industry than the blue-collar industry, and that has to be confronted."
That cultural condition seems to extend to, and be embraced by, today's white-collar press corps.
Make no mistake: The $70-an-hour claim represents a classic case of conservative misinformation. It's also a very dangerous one. The falsehood about autoworkers is being spread at a crucial time, when a make-or-break public debate is taking place, a debate that could affect millions of American workers.
Tampa I stand corrected Part 2
"Lavish contracts granted to the United Auto Workers, for instance, put GM on the hook for more than $70 an hour per worker." [New York Post]
"The United Auto Workers are keen on saving their jobs and the $70-an-hour paychecks that go with them." [National Review]
"[T]here's no reason that a UAW worker should get total compensation of $70 an hour when the average American only makes about $25 an hour in total compensation." [James Gattuso, from the conservative Heritage Foundation, appearing on MSNBC]
"Given that we're in tough economic times, it's hard for the average American to muster a lot of sympathy for workers at the Big 3 automakers when all of the companies pay out over $70 per hour in wages, pension and health care benefits." [Right Wing News]
"The bailout as proposed today is a bailout of the UAW; it's not the auto industry. A Big Three worker in Detroit makes $73 an hour if you include all the benefits." [Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, appearing on the syndicated television show Inside Washington]
"Companies at which union workers make $71 an hour in wages and benefits -- compared to just $47 an hour at Toyota's U.S. plants -- are not going to be saved by a $25 billion government check." [Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, writing at Human Events Online]
"Big Three union workers, with their gold-plated health care plans, make about $73 an hour in total compensation." [Conservative columnist Amanda Carpenter at Townhall.com]
"When you're paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits and your competition is paying $48 to its workers, you're going to get your butt kicked in the marketplace unfortunately." [Conservative radio host Lars Larson]
"The average Detroit autoworker makes more than $100K each year." [On-screen Fox News graphic]
Let's note that any suggestion in the press that most UAW workers earn, or are paid, $70 an hour is spectacularly dishonest. Period. (As one Daily Kos diarist pointed out last week, according to the UAW website, the base pay for a worker in a UAW plant is about $28 an hour.)
What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos.
Do you see that there's a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don't get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.)
Simply put, GM's labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they're not.
Felix Salmon at Portfolio did perhaps the best job explaining the misinformation at play:
The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers. [emphasis in original]
Indeed, according to this Associated Press report, a chunk of GM's $70-an-hour labor costs goes toward paying current retirees' pensions and health-care coverage. In other words, that's money that's not going to end up in the pocket of any autoworker when he cashes his paycheck this week. That's money GM has to set aside in order to pay off costs associated with workers already in retirement. That money has absolutely nothing to do with calculating the hourly wage of a full-time UAW employee today. None.
So, no, UAW workers don't make $70 an hour even if you factor in benefits, because a portion of those benefits are going to people who retired years ago.
Nonetheless, that formulation (wages+benefits=$70 an hour) has been widespread. That's what Sorkin did in his Times column: "The average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."
Not only is that inaccurate, but there's also a problem in terms of perception. It's true that autoworkers don't earn annual salaries and that when calculating hourly wages, the cost of benefits paid directly to the worker can be included. But some media outlets have been so casual and sloppy in presenting the facts that news consumers are left with the false impression that GM workers pocket $70 an hour. That's not true, and it seems some in the press are doing very little to correct that misperception.
For instance, BusinessWeek also used the same convoluted language: "Older UAW members make more than $70 per hour in combined wages and benefits." Dallas Morning News columnist Cheryl Hall did it, too: "GM's average worker makes $78.21 an hour in wages and benefits."
Why does the press use that convoluted equation when calculating how much autoworkers supposedly make?
I have a hunch it's because that $70 an hour is a real eyepopper. It makes a very deep impression within the space of just a few words.
I'm sure everybody understood the $70-an-hour implication in Sorkin's column, especially since he also lamented the "gold-plated benefits" UAW workers enjoyed. (They were "off the charts," he stressed.) And since it's harder to back up a claim of gold-plated benefits by citing the actual hourly wage of UAW workers ($28), Sorkin went with the $70 figure, along with completely nebulous language about "health care and pension costs."
The takeaway from Sorkin's column was quite clear: GM is mismanaged, and its workers are wildly overpaid.
By the way, here's the right way to cover the issue: In a November 18 column, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's David Nicklaus wrote that the Big Three "need to bring their labor costs, which average $72 an hour, closer to the Honda or Toyota level of about $45." Note how Nicklaus never implied that labors costs equaled take-home wages. Why? Because they don't. (And kudos to Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein, who refuses to use the $70-an-hour figure because it's so misleading.)
How much money GM's workers make is certainly relevant when discussing the unfolding automotive crisis. But the press should stop confusing the issue, and tainting the perceptions of news consumers, by casually suggesting that $70-an-hour labor costs represent what UAW workers pocket every 60 minutes.
That's misleading and dishonest.
And that's why it's still not too late for Sorkin and the Times to correct the record.
"Lavish contracts granted to the United Auto Workers, for instance, put GM on the hook for more than $70 an hour per worker." [New York Post]
"The United Auto Workers are keen on saving their jobs and the $70-an-hour paychecks that go with them." [National Review]
"[T]here's no reason that a UAW worker should get total compensation of $70 an hour when the average American only makes about $25 an hour in total compensation." [James Gattuso, from the conservative Heritage Foundation, appearing on MSNBC]
"Given that we're in tough economic times, it's hard for the average American to muster a lot of sympathy for workers at the Big 3 automakers when all of the companies pay out over $70 per hour in wages, pension and health care benefits." [Right Wing News]
"The bailout as proposed today is a bailout of the UAW; it's not the auto industry. A Big Three worker in Detroit makes $73 an hour if you include all the benefits." [Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, appearing on the syndicated television show Inside Washington]
"Companies at which union workers make $71 an hour in wages and benefits -- compared to just $47 an hour at Toyota's U.S. plants -- are not going to be saved by a $25 billion government check." [Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, writing at Human Events Online]
"Big Three union workers, with their gold-plated health care plans, make about $73 an hour in total compensation." [Conservative columnist Amanda Carpenter at Townhall.com]
"When you're paying $73.73 an hour to those people with salary and benefits and your competition is paying $48 to its workers, you're going to get your butt kicked in the marketplace unfortunately." [Conservative radio host Lars Larson]
"The average Detroit autoworker makes more than $100K each year." [On-screen Fox News graphic]
Let's note that any suggestion in the press that most UAW workers earn, or are paid, $70 an hour is spectacularly dishonest. Period. (As one Daily Kos diarist pointed out last week, according to the UAW website, the base pay for a worker in a UAW plant is about $28 an hour.)
What that $70 figure (or $73) actually represents is what it costs GM in total labor expenses, on an hourly basis, to manufacture autos.
Do you see that there's a big distinction? General Motors doles out $70 an hour in overall labor costs to manufacture cars. But individual employees don't get paid $70 an hour to make cars. (The discrepancy between costs and wages is explained by additional benefits, pension fees, and health-care costs GM pays out to current and retired employees.)
Simply put, GM's labor costs are not synonymous with hourly wages earned by UAW employees. Many in the press have casually used the two interchangeably. But they're not.
Felix Salmon at Portfolio did perhaps the best job explaining the misinformation at play:
The average GM assembly-line worker makes about $28 per hour in wages, and I can assure you that GM is not paying $42 an hour in health insurance and pension plan contributions. Rather, the $70 per hour figure (or $73 an hour, or whatever) is a ridiculous number obtained by adding up GM's total labor, health, and pension costs, and then dividing by the total number of hours worked. In other words, it includes all the healthcare and retirement costs of retired workers. [emphasis in original]
Indeed, according to this Associated Press report, a chunk of GM's $70-an-hour labor costs goes toward paying current retirees' pensions and health-care coverage. In other words, that's money that's not going to end up in the pocket of any autoworker when he cashes his paycheck this week. That's money GM has to set aside in order to pay off costs associated with workers already in retirement. That money has absolutely nothing to do with calculating the hourly wage of a full-time UAW employee today. None.
So, no, UAW workers don't make $70 an hour even if you factor in benefits, because a portion of those benefits are going to people who retired years ago.
Nonetheless, that formulation (wages+benefits=$70 an hour) has been widespread. That's what Sorkin did in his Times column: "The average worker was paid about $70 an hour, including health care and pension costs."
Not only is that inaccurate, but there's also a problem in terms of perception. It's true that autoworkers don't earn annual salaries and that when calculating hourly wages, the cost of benefits paid directly to the worker can be included. But some media outlets have been so casual and sloppy in presenting the facts that news consumers are left with the false impression that GM workers pocket $70 an hour. That's not true, and it seems some in the press are doing very little to correct that misperception.
For instance, BusinessWeek also used the same convoluted language: "Older UAW members make more than $70 per hour in combined wages and benefits." Dallas Morning News columnist Cheryl Hall did it, too: "GM's average worker makes $78.21 an hour in wages and benefits."
Why does the press use that convoluted equation when calculating how much autoworkers supposedly make?
I have a hunch it's because that $70 an hour is a real eyepopper. It makes a very deep impression within the space of just a few words.
I'm sure everybody understood the $70-an-hour implication in Sorkin's column, especially since he also lamented the "gold-plated benefits" UAW workers enjoyed. (They were "off the charts," he stressed.) And since it's harder to back up a claim of gold-plated benefits by citing the actual hourly wage of UAW workers ($28), Sorkin went with the $70 figure, along with completely nebulous language about "health care and pension costs."
The takeaway from Sorkin's column was quite clear: GM is mismanaged, and its workers are wildly overpaid.
By the way, here's the right way to cover the issue: In a November 18 column, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's David Nicklaus wrote that the Big Three "need to bring their labor costs, which average $72 an hour, closer to the Honda or Toyota level of about $45." Note how Nicklaus never implied that labors costs equaled take-home wages. Why? Because they don't. (And kudos to Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein, who refuses to use the $70-an-hour figure because it's so misleading.)
How much money GM's workers make is certainly relevant when discussing the unfolding automotive crisis. But the press should stop confusing the issue, and tainting the perceptions of news consumers, by casually suggesting that $70-an-hour labor costs represent what UAW workers pocket every 60 minutes.
That's misleading and dishonest.
And that's why it's still not too late for Sorkin and the Times to correct the record.
mitch768292
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Posts
- 474
- Reaction score
- 1
Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More
Friday, 27 Feb 2009 | 4:39 PM ET
Posted By: Larry Kudlow
Anchor
Let me be very clear on the economics of Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.
He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.
That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.
Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.
This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.
Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.
And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.
The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.
Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.
Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.
There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.
Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?
Friday, 27 Feb 2009 | 4:39 PM ET
Posted By: Larry Kudlow
Anchor
AP
Let me be very clear on the economics of Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.
He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.
That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.
Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.
This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.
Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.
And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.
The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.
Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.
Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.
There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.
Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?
slimvintage
BSB Addict
Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More
Friday, 27 Feb 2009 | 4:39 PM ET
Posted By: Larry Kudlow
Anchor
AP
Let me be very clear on the economics of Obama’s State of the Union speech and his budget.
He is declaring war on investors, entrepreneurs, small businesses, large corporations, and private-equity and venture-capital funds.
That is the meaning of his anti-growth tax-hike proposals, which make absolutely no sense at all — either for this recession or from the standpoint of expanding our economy’s long-run potential to grow.
Raising the marginal tax rate on successful earners, capital, dividends, and all the private funds is a function of Obama’s left-wing social vision, and a repudiation of his economic-recovery statements. Ditto for his sweeping government-planning-and-spending program, which will wind up raising federal outlays as a share of GDP to at least 30 percent, if not more, over the next 10 years.
This is nearly double the government-spending low-point reached during the late 1990s by the Gingrich Congress and the Clinton administration. While not quite as high as spending levels in Western Europe, we regrettably will be gaining on this statist-planning approach.
Study after study over the past several decades has shown how countries that spend more produce less, while nations that tax less produce more. Obama is doing it wrong on both counts.
And as far as middle-class tax cuts are concerned, Obama’s cap-and-trade program will be a huge across-the-board tax increase on blue-collar workers, including unionized workers. Industrial production is plunging, but new carbon taxes will prevent production from ever recovering. While the country wants more fuel and power, cap-and-trade will deliver less.
The tax hikes will generate lower growth and fewer revenues. Yes, the economy will recover. But Obama’s rosy scenario of 4 percent recovery growth in the out years of his budget is not likely to occur. The combination of easy money from the Fed and below-potential economic growth is a prescription for stagflation. That’s one of the messages of the falling stock market.
Essentially, the Obama economic policies represent a major Democratic party relapse into Great Society social spending and taxing. It is a return to the LBJ/Nixon era, and a move away from the Reagan/Clinton period. House Republicans, fortunately, are 90 days sober, as they are putting up a valiant fight to stop the big-government onslaught and move the GOP back to first principles.
Noteworthy up here on Wall Street, a great many Obama supporters — especially hedge-fund types who voted for “change” — are becoming disillusioned with the performances of Obama and Treasury man Geithner.
There is a growing sense of buyer’s remorse.
Well then, do conservatives dare say: We told you so?
Rewinding back past Bush's two terms to the tax brackets in place under his predecessor would surely be a fatal error. On the Bush watch, here at the end of his second term, we are in far better shape economically than we ever were under Bill Clinton. Conservatives should definitely be saying we told you so. It's such a shame that the brilliant Bobby Jindal wasn't the GOP candidate instead of McCain. He is so obviously superior in every way to Obama, in philosophy, intelligence, beauty and articulation of important ideas. Jindal has been touted by tiptop Republicans as the great white hope for the renaissance of the party. I'm convinced. It's either him or Palin and I like skinny boys best. Spindly Jindal in '12!!!
Mitch, regarding your research: the breathless and shortsighted Larry Kuntlow has been blabbing this sort of gossipy hysteria for decades and no one seriously pays him any attention. As pundits go, the nearly-conservative whom I like best is the controversial Charles Krauthammer, a man with a deeply unfortunate face and a silly name, but who is smart enough to detect the forest.
mitch768292
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Posts
- 474
- Reaction score
- 1
Slim,
Did you notice that the author praised Clinton and criticized Nixon? The author did not praise Bush.
I don't understand why any critique of Obama policy always results in a comeback about Bush, when Bush is not part of the equation for the future of the economy and that is what the author is talking about. The author is advocating economic policies in place from 1980-2000, not 2000-2008.
Being a small business owner I know what Kudlow is talking about. I know firsthand the devastation caused by high taxes. The taxes are already too high and have been for decades. I can't imagine the damage that higher taxes will do. When I had to pay my 2007 federal income tax bill I was forced to lay off a 62 year old woman because I could not afford to pay her salary anymore. I had to reassign her duties to other employees and myself. Her husband was unemployed and they have 2 teenage boys at home. If tax rates went down her husband could get a job because business owner's who might employ him would have enough money to do so. If my tax bill had been just 50% less, I could have kept that lady employed.
When the rates are high, the revenues are low. When the rates are low, the revenues are high. That is a statistical and historical fact. Taxes are a disincentive. With Obama's proposal for tax increases you will see productivity choked to death and growth will become stagnant. Rather than growth we will have shrinkage. Why work your ass off if the government is going to confiscate half of what you make. I say half because that is what it comes to after the state takes their cut and then you factor in sales tax, property tax, and a slew of other taxes imposed at the local level.
People calling for tax hikes are usually people who never ran a business with employees. These income taxes are killing us. George Bush and the Republican Congress did not go far enough in cutting taxes. I used to criticize Bush for not using his veto on spending bills often enough. But he looks like scrooge when compared to Obama, who wants to play Santa Claus to all the democratic constituencies while sucking the life blood out of the hard working, tax paying, productive, law abiding, citizens who make this country great. His tax policy is not about economic recovery. It is about class warfare and punitive measures being taken against those who succeed and work. It is about punishing the productive and rewarding the unproductive. It is all about envy. One thing socialists have never learned: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's............."
In case you are wondering what happened to the lady I had to lay off, she got a government job making less than half of the 55K that I was paying here.
There was no mention of Jindal or Palin in the article, so I'm not sure where you got that from? This article is a critique of a particular bill and tax policy, and not about the next election or its players.
Who loves ya baby!
Last edited:
slimvintage
BSB Addict
Good post. I have listened to Larry Kudlow for years and most of his apocalyptic ranting never heralds the disasters he constantly expects from the left of center governments he rails against. In mentioning Bush and Clinton I only wanted to remind myself that we could all have afforded the 62 yo mother of two teenagers under Bill, but under George she'd have been a luxury we couldn't permit ourselves.
As far as Obama and Jindal, I just couldn't help that. Sorry. I think Jindal is so fucking funny I'd rather watch and listen to him than jack off to a new Videoboys.
Your firsthand testimony is very compelling. I somehow hope that a miracle happens. I want to do one more restoration before I get too rickety to handle the physical laboring I like so much on the site. All my potential liquidity is tied up in dollar investments which have to regain at least some of their value for me to finish my life's work. I'm counting on what happens during the Obama administration to put me back in business. I suppose you'd better wish me luck.
Similar threads
