POTUS to announce WH Job Creation Summit in December

Most small bus. in my state are folding or will be folded by 2010…too high taxes, already a small business is taxed 58 %, when O pushes back the bush cuts that will go up to 68%. It’s too much. Businesses can’t keep the lights on with this type of pressure comming from O. The health care bill will tax even more…they can’t withstand the taxes…

“The stimulus has done its job.”
Now it’s back to let’s all break out into focus groups and report back to me at the end of the day with all your solutions, blah, blah, blah
No wonder all liberals can do is become professors and trial lawyers.

and community organizers.
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 12, 2009 9:39:17 AM
And what about the labor unions??? Obama has supported them, I cannot belive they have not led the country out of this recession.

Wait a minute, isn’t that what the stimulus was supposed to do…create jobs? After all the billions of dollars spent, and being spent, and debt that we’ve now accumulated for future generations to pay, if the stimulus was so successful, then why do we now suddenly need a “jobs summit?”
Maybe the President will finally learn that the government alone cannot stimulate anything close to sustained job growth. To do that, you need to stimulate private enterprise not government. The so-called stimulus did nothing to help private-sector employment growth, and this “jobs summit” is a tacit acknowledgement of that fact.

I’m so glad to see this issue being addressed. As many intelligent, economically-literate folks know, it was likely we needed a bigger stimulus at the get-go.
The Hill reported a couple of days ago that Reid had announced at a weekly lunch that Senate Democrats would be taking up a new job-creation bill. The Hill also noted that House Democrats have signaled openness to a tax credit for each new hire companies make,though the Dems n the House have yet to introduce a bill proposing it. Speaker Pelosi has said that passage of a $500 billion, six-year transportation reauthorization bill, funding highway and transit construction projects, could serve as a jobs bill, but the White House and Senate Democrats have only supported extensions of the transportation bill– so we’ll see.

Why wait until December? Why not wait until 2025, why do anything? This would of been done a long time ago, but Obama has not destroyed that which he came to destroy,,,,America.

I think the best way to create jobs is for the government to confiscate more wealth from small businesses and then to direct that capital in ways it thinks is best for society.
Like giving money to unions.

Peas, lots of liberals are also multimillionaire entertainers, writers, musicians and artists– or union workers. If you’re going to do the whole stereotyped liberal talking point thing you might as well go for broke and throw them in too.
Posted by: Allycat 521 | Nov 12, 2009 9:58:58 AM
You’re right, let’s go for it.

To paraphrase a Nike Commercial, “just do it”. When FDR was saddled with a depression after Hoover’s presidency, he started the TVA, the CCC, and several other jobs programs that got America back to work and put money in people’s pockets who deserved it most: the ones who work for it. I am flabbergasted that Obama hasn’t followed that model. The private sector is not creating jobs because of the credit crunch. So why isn’t the Federal Government creating jobs? I am not talking about bureaucratic positions at some do-nothing think-tank. I am talking about Federal Money for public projects that hire private subcontractors to hire regular folks to get some money flowing. What happened to the promise to repair bridges? What happened to the promise to create 3 million green jobs? Unfortunately, Obama has never been in a position to create jobs before. He has never had to hire or fire people. He has never had to run a business that had to compete in the free market. This is put up or shut up time. We don’t need rhetoric, we need full-time, paid positions. It is astounding that we voted to extend unemployment compensation to allow workers to sit at home and collect money without working, but we can’t find the money to pay people to do much needed work. People should support Obama’s efforts because he is the President of these United States, not because they like his politics. However, if Obama does not deliver some jobs, his support will fall through the floor. People are willing to work for him, but they are not willing to sit at home jobless while the TV and radio tells them that the stimulus is working. Show us the jobs!

I think the best way to create jobs is for the government to confiscate more wealth from small businesses and then to direct that capital in ways it thinks is best for society.
Posted by: Modern Progressive | Nov 12, 2009 10:12:47 AM
“We’re from the government and we’re here to help.”
Actually, VP Joe Biden says giving up more of your wealth through taxes is the patriotic thing to do. I trust Joe.

“So, its your contention that government monetary policy and the economy work exactly like personal finance?”
In many, many ways, yes. Except that households can’t print money and destroy the value of the dollar.

Obama is just starting to think about job creation NOW?
***
Um, not like “today” — no. Read newspapers. Follow along. Also note the “more ideas” and “further job creating options” in this part of the above article:
—
This summit has been kicked around as an idea by members of the president’s economic team as a way to foster more ideas for economic growth.
Last week the president met with his economic recovery advisory board to discuss further job creating options, including more investment in infrastructure and tax cuts.
—-
As Fab said, “You remember Bush’s favorite line “go spend money America”.
We have to be smarter this time around not keep doing the same thing and expect different results.”

As many intelligent, economically-literate folks know, it was likely we needed a bigger stimulus at the get-go.
Posted by: Allycat 521 | Nov 12, 2009 9:59:08 AM
Yes, I don’t think the government has interfered nearly enough yet.
We need more road construction jobs because they always work out well. In fact, they usually include at least two extra employees to watch one do the work. And we all know that the government doesn’t already collect enough taxes off a gallon of gas for these issues.
I think the government should also confiscate Catapillar and a couple of big cement companies so they wouldn’t have to pay for all the equipment and materials for the road work. That would save a lot of money and give those companies some much needed relief from trying to make a profit during these hard economic times.
And if things turn around well enough, the government could confiscate some home builders because everyone needs a house, right? Wait, we’re gonna need some lumber. What about some lumber companies? Then the government wouldn’t have to pay for the wood.
This is working out better than I thought!

Paul Krugman is so brilliant he didn’t even warn of the economic collapse in the first place.
Peter Schiff, Karl Denninger, and Thomas Sowell did. We should be listening to them.

Oh, please, Mr. Obama, let’s spend, spend, spend! My great grandchildren haven’t felt the pinch yet! Your program isn’t going to create anything but more misery!

“House Democrats have signaled openness to a tax credit for each new hire companies make”
Translation: I’m afraid I might get voted out next year so I’ll signal openness to a conservative value. Yea, that’s what I’ll do…

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 12, 2009 10:31:23 AM
We have a dog named Magoo, named that because he was always bumping into things and such a space cadet. Sweet dog though. With a loud bark. Certainly wouldn’t find anything he said on the economy credible– but I digress. I agree with Bruce Bartlett on the following:
What both Keynes and Fisher said was that when the economy is in a deflationary depression the collapse of private spending had to be compensated for by public spending, because that was the only way to get money circulating and make monetary policy effective. While monetary policy would drive the recovery it needed fiscal policy in order to work.
When the economic crisis hit in the fall of last year, I was very grateful for having studied the Great Depression and absorbed the work of great thinkers like Keynes and Fisher because, as Yogi Berra might have said, it was déjà vu all over again.
Without public spending on goods and services I didn’t see any way for monetary policy to be effective, thus prolonging the deflation at the root of the economy’s problem. I was disappointed that so little of the February stimulus package went to the purchase of goods and services, which drives spending, and so much into economically ineffective transfers, which don’t. But I understood that time was of the essence…
and so on. This quote is also important:”I believe that my friends are still stuck in the 1970s when tax rates were considerably higher and excessive demand (i.e., inflation) was our biggest economic problem. Today, tax rates are much lower and a lack of demand (i.e., deflation) is the central problem.”
Exactly. We need fresh thinking, and the Right offers economic religion and can’t adapt to actual circumstances.

“But I understood that time was of the essence…”
Time was of the essense so lets bumble or corrupt this TRILLION dollar gamble.
Pathetic.

Here’s the thing. I DON’T want my economy or my society to look like Europe. Ok?
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 12, 2009 10:50:24 AM
I love how right wingers focus on a personality– Krugman’s– rather than taking on the economics. Fine, for you he’s not a credible source.Krugman wasn’t the only one who called for a bigger, more fine-tuned stimulus– not by a long shot. Out of curiosity, is Bartlett a liberal that wants America to be Europe 2.0 also? Do you understand the following or are you too dogmatic: “Today, tax rates are much lower (than in the 70s) and a lack of demand (i.e., deflation) is the central problem. I really don’t understand why conservatives insist on a one-size-fits-all economic policy consisting of more and bigger tax cuts no matter what the economic circumstances are; it’s simply become dogma totally disconnected from reality.”

I believe that my friends are still stuck in the 1970s when tax rates were considerably higher and excessive demand (i.e., inflation) was our biggest economic problem. Today, tax rates are much lower and a lack of demand (i.e., deflation) is the central problem.”
Posted by: Allycat 521 | Nov 12, 2009 10:45:05 AM
Who lowered taxes in the 80′s?
I’m not an economist and certainly can’t offer anything credible here, but it seems to me that inflation is a result of high demand AND low supply. Companies reduce their inventory during tough times and inflation can ocurr if demand heats up before inventories can be replenished. Are companies reducing their inventories right now? Is inflation just around the corner? Hard to say if demand will heat up at all with 17 or so million people unemployed.

Barack Obama ran for president on a promise of saving the typical family $2,500 a year in lower health care premiums.
No one in the White House is making such a pledge now.
In fact, no one knows who, if anyone, would be helped by passage of the Pelosi bill.
Does your current policy cover orthotics and prosthetics? Would you prefer one that does not do so? Too bad: under Pelosicare you will be required to purchase a policy that covers those items, and you will pay for it.

“We need fresh thinking, and the Right offers economic religion and can’t adapt to actual circumstances.”
Here’s some fresh thinking: STOP SPENDING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS WE DON’T HAVE AND CAN’T PAY BACK!!

Who lowered taxes in the 80′s?
I’m not an economist …
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 12, 2009 11:15:26 AM
That’s very, very clear– even to me who isn’t an economist either but has taken classes and read a lot.
The point is that Reagan did lower taxes in the 80s– which is what needed to be done given the inflationary nature of the recession.
Conservatives want to follow that same paradigm even though the situation now is deflationary. Yes we will– in the future– hit inflation, which is when we’ll need to readjust. But right now, we need to pull out of our present circumstances– not the circumstances of the 70s and early 80s. But too many people are stuck in a box, and won’t come out of that box and look around. They’re just repeating mantras like brainwashed zealots and pointing to circumstances that are not analogous.
Pragmatism and fresh thinking and a willingness to open one’s eyes and really look — not just give sleeping giants and all that baloney lip service– is needed.

That’s very, very clear– even to me who isn’t an economist either but has taken classes and read a lot.
Posted by: Allycat 521 | Nov 12, 2009 12:15:26 PM
That’s wonderful professor. You took a class and read alot. And Obama gave a speech. And I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Have you ever run a business? Just curious.

re: “reducing government regulation of the economy”
Before you get started with that one, with deregulation comes great responsibility. The government is an epic fail in this regard as evidenced in part by the housing bubble bursting. I hope they have FINALLY learned their lesson because it is still a good “pillar” in my mind and could be even better with smaller government. The answer is definitely NOT to grow government bigger, adding more levels to an already unweildy system of oversight.

They’re just repeating mantras like brainwashed zealots and pointing to circumstances that are not analogous.”
You mean, like the left does pushing for massive spending like FDR did during the Great Depression (which DIDN’T work)?
Posted by: Mary | Nov 12, 2009 12:57:33 PM
I rest my case. As that was a typical mantra. LOL. Woot, Mary! You go you original talking point grrrrl!

Approximately 4,000 people it is now estimated by the CDC have died from swine flu – on Obama’s watch.

Maybe you should try dispelling the mantra rather than simply snarking at the author.
***
Maybe.
Last time I checked that was up to me, not you.

Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 12, 2009 1:57:01 PM posted: “So tell us professor how FDR’s programs brought the country out of the Great Depression.”
For those who live in an urban area, you may not see the results as much as we do out here close to the real world. For example, the programs such as the CCC provided conservation work in every U.S. state – bridges, roads, trails, airport fields; erosion control, dams, irrigation, planting trees, timber stand improvement, stream improvement. The CCC workers were trained as a team in military fashion. They were fed three healthy meals each day and built the underpinnings of America’s WWII fighting force.
In my state, Oregon, we actually see the benefit from those projects every day – hydro-electric dams, bridges along the coast, roads, and stands of timber.
Events don’t happen in a vacuum. Of course WWII’s massive spending finally pushed our country out of the Great Depression. But FDR’s efforts to uplift our nation were not wasted.

short answer– I own part of three businesses, one that my husband runs. I’m self-employed. I have department management experience. I’ve never been a CEO or ran a business on my own. why is this relevant to you?And have you?
Posted by: Allycat 521 | Nov 12, 2009 2:30:13 PM
Just curious as a said before. Me, too. Self-employed since ’89 but nothing big. Home-based stuff. Been living off on-site contracts since ’01. About to walk the plank on 12/28 with no prospects yet. (And contrary to what jhw539 says, I don’t show up on any stinkin’ Dept of Labor survey.)

Approximately 4,000 people it is now estimated by the CDC have died from swine flu – on Obama’s watch.
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 12, 2009 1:45:01 PM
__________________________________
In an average flu season, about 36,000 Americans die. So in other words 288,000 Americans died of flu – on Bush’s watch. (Reuters)

“In my state, Oregon, we actually see the benefit from those projects every day – hydro-electric dams, bridges along the coast, roads, and stands of timber.”
From the Register-Guard (11/12/09):
“Oregon is one of the most troubled states in the country when it comes to paying for education, human services, public safety and other state services, according to a national report issued today.
The nonpartisan Pew Center on the States ranked Oregon among the 10 states in the greatest “fiscal peril.” The report said California’s budgetary problems “are in a league of their own,” prompting its authors to devise a “California Scorecard” to determine the severity of fiscal problems in other states. By the scorecard’s measures — which accounted for unemployment, the gap between spending and revenue, home foreclosures and other factors — Oregon received a “C+” grade, tied with Nevada for the fifth place behind California.
The Pew Center cited as a leading factor in Oregon’s plunging revenue, a sharper fall-off than all but three other states.
“Perhaps no number tells the story of Oregon’s bleak fiscal house like the 19 percent drop in revenue the state reported between the first quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009. The decrease is a reflection of Oregon’s heavy reliance on income taxes at a time when incomes dropped and employers shed jobs by the tens of thousands.”
Oregon’s income tax, considered more volatile than sales and property taxes, accounts for 71 percent of its general-fund revenue — a higher percentage than any other revenue source for any other state.
The Pew report also cited Oregon’s soaring unemployment from mid-2008 until the spring of 2009. In that time, joblessness more than doubled, the report noted, “outpacing the rate in California and surging faster than that of any other state.”
The report attributed Oregon’s unemployment rate — which reached a historic high of 12.2 percent in August — in part to its reliance on the wood-products, high-tech and tourism sectors. All have suffered during the current recession.”

The nonpartisan Pew Center on the States ranked Oregon among the 10 states in the greatest “fiscal peril.”
_______________________________________
Same with Florida – down in Jeb Bush country with a Republican governor.

Eisenhower’s efforts to build the country’s highway system were not wasted efforts either and he was (oh noes!) a Republican.
Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | Nov 12, 2009 3:06:06 PM
Yeah– but my grandmother’s Republican party was not the GOP of today. No. way.

Yeah– but my grandmother’s Republican party was not the GOP of today. No. way.
___________________________________
I agree, not as many extremists . . .

Allycat-I don’t know any Republicans that don’t believe in civil rights. I really don’t understand how you come to that conclusion. Limbaugh is just a windbag…but you’re probably just hearing soundbites of him anyway.
I don’t like anyone who feels they have to make fun of people to make their point. I think it just diminishes what they are saying.
Tierra I was born in the 50′s. There was a totally different mindset back then. I don’t think you have any idea how different it really was.
Unfortunately there are always extremists on both sides. Have you ever read Black Boy. Fascinating book, one of my all time favorites.

“My grandmother wasn’t a wingnut. She was an intellectual conservative with libertarian leanings who believed wholeheartedly in civil rights,and who would appreciate Olympia Snowe much more than Boehner. Limbaugh would make her sick.”
Doubtful, especially if she were a fiscal conservative. Olympia Snowe is essentially a Democrat and is to the left of Boehner. JFK was more conservative than either of them. In today’s world, he’d be considered a wingnut.

“In today’s world JFK would be President Barack Obama – JFK’s family has clearly told us that including his brother and his daughter.”
LOL! NOT. JFK’s POLICIES tell a different story, especially his fiscal policies which called for the SHRINKING of the federal government and significant tax cuts for the private sector. In this regard, JFK was the ANTI-OBAMA in the extreme. Plus, JFK wasn’t a Marxist. But thanks for playing!

Posted by: Jenn | Nov 12, 2009 10:40:04 PM
“In today’s world JFK would be President Barack Obama – JFK’s family has clearly told us that including his brother and his daughter.”
I’d take the Kennedy family’s opinion about JFK and Obama over a right winger’s any day. They know the hand Obama was dealt – and they know a touch more about their family member than some poster on a web blog.

“I’d take the Kennedy family’s opinion about JFK and Obama over a right winger’s any day. They know the hand Obama was dealt – and they know a touch more about their family member than some poster on a web blog.”
Uh, JFK’s fiscal policies are a matter of HISTORICAL RECORD and have nothing to do with my opinion. But then, coping with historical reality has never been the strong suit of liberals. That’s why we’re trillions of dollars deeper in debt and things are getting worse. Hope and Change!