Unemployment

[Freak]

If you read the news (I'll get links tomorrow) you'll notice that unemployment is at it's highest since 9 years ago, growing .3% this past month, .2% faster than expected. The White House has issued statements saying that tax rebates will kick in at the end of the month and reverse this trend. Their rationale is that businesses and middle-class families will have more money to spend, etc.

Basically, I don't see how an INCOME tax wil help fix UNEMPLOYMENT. Getting 10% back on 0$ is still 0$. Furthermore, I don't think, nor have I seen anything, that indicates that middle-class rebates help produce jobs. I don't think John Smith is gonna take his extra 500$ and start a new business. I also don't think companies like Boeing or whatever are gonna suddenly create lots more jobs because of this. It seems like Clinton's policies, after a brief period, lead to less unemployment. Now after Bush has a had a few years, the problem is back. Bush says that is because the prosperity Clinton has came from his father's policies. LOL to that. That seems like a cop-out.

Anyways, on the topcis of unemployment and fiscal policy, let's hear your thoughts!

[snaggle]

The sad truth is, quasi-trickle down economics don't work any better than the originals did in the 80's. I sometimes wonder if they're not using monkeys to predict the fiscal future on the hill.

[Tone-Loc]

As of 2 weeks ago, when I started working again, it marked the first time myself and my wife both held jobs at the same time since May of 2002. My wife was out of work from May 2002 until Jan. 1st, 2003. I was just out of work from April 8th until June 23rd. I consider myself very lucky to have found a job so realtively quickly, although it seemed like an eternity.

I have said it many times, I would have glady not taken the $600 dollar rebate that President Bush felt that I and many others needed in 2001, if it meant that we would have had our jobs.

[VeeKaChu]

Well the Administration has a plan to keep people from worrying about the unemployment problem- all they gotta do is change the labor laws so 8 million americans LOSE THEIR OVERTIME (http://www.msnbc.com/news/931238.asp). That's 8 million people who're gonna be so flustered that they won't be paying attention to the other numbers.

Then, later this month when the 'FREE MONEY!!!' tax-rebate checks start to appear in folk's mailboxes, they'll forget all about losing their overtime, because, hey, the President gave them FREE MONEY.

Then next year he gets elected, because he gave out FREE MONEY twice in his first term!

[Tone-Loc]

You know, I wouldn't be against the new OT laws, if it forced companies to not differentiate between certain types of exempt employees... meaning anyone that was exempt got the same benefits. Meaning, the poor schmuck in collections you just hired at the minimum 22k per year (which is only $10.58 per hour) that you can get away with never paying overtime too, gets the same benefits as any other new exempt employee.

It's going to be one hell of a defecit by the time W gets out of office in January of 2009, after only 8 years, that will put the previous defecit generated by Reaganomics (in 12 total years or Regan + Bush I) to absolute shame.

[Cain]

Tone, I'm glad you found a job and hope your bumpy roads are in the rear-view mirror.

Here's part of column written awhile ago by Paul Krugman:

Finally, there’s line 47. You haven’t heard about that, but you will. Here’s the story. The Bush administration didn’t want to give those famous $300 rebate checks; its original plan would have pumped hardly any money into the economy last year. Under prodding from Democrats the plan was changed to incorporate immediate cash outlays. But those outlays were included only grudgingly, and with a catch: they really weren’t rebates. Instead, they were merely advances on future tax cuts.

Another article:

MCCORMALLY: Remember last year’s tax-rebate bonanza, when $300 and $600 checks rained down on us?…The problem is that the rebate (although based on 2000 returns) was really an advance payment of savings resulting from the creation for 2001 returns of a 10% tax bracket for some of the money that used to be taxed at 15%.

Both via the Daily Howler: http://www.dailyhowler.com/h022502_1.shtml

Bush just wanted to cut taxes, but compromised with Democrats on the rebate as an immediate stimulus for the economy. Remember the tax plan wasn't originally offered as a "stimulus" for the economy, rather, it relied on the philosophical argument that a budget surplus could only mean government was thuggishly over-taxing you.

When Bush says he cut taxes, he's fucking lying. He only shifted the burden to state and local government (running record deficits, unlikely to receive federal aid). Local taxes have the added effect of being more regressive as well.

From the NYTIMES:

I recently talked with Dirk Kempthorne, the Republican governor of Idaho and a staunch supporter of the Bush agenda. In the years after he was elected governor in 1998, Kempthorne, a former senator, signed 49 tax cuts into law. But this year, with income-tax revenues off by $35 million, Kempthorne persuaded his Republican-dominated Legislature to temporarily raise the sales tax and add a tax on cigarettes. For this, he has been vilified by conservatives in Washington, who vow that no governor who raises taxes or asks for more aid will have a future in the party.

"I wasn't going to make further cuts in education," Kempthorne told me. "I wasn't going to release prisoners. I saw that in other states, and it was a disaster. We had proposals that would have eliminated the delivery of meals to elderly who had chosen to remain in their homes. If they don't receive that food, then they have no choice but to go into a nursing home. Why would you take their dignity away from them?
"I did what was unpopular, but in my mind and heart it was the right thing to do. And I think the measures that I've taken that are being criticized by my brethren conservatives, well. . . . " He sighed. "They're not standing in my shoes."

C-R-Y. Sounds like a goddamn liberal.

Anyway, I saw a neat bumper sticker the other day:

"Under Democrats, only interns get screwed." (Not quite true, but still funny.)

[Freak]

I'd rahter be 'over-taxed' than run gigantic deficits, cripple the spending power states, and not be able to afford government programs. A real issue is the Administration's gaurantee of increased health coverage, education reform, military spending...etc. If you're going to try and push these sorts of things forward, you can't enjoy record tax cuts. Seems like he's 'cutting' taxes to get votes, and increasing government spending to get votes, meanwhile sacrificing basic fiscal sanity. If you want to spend lots, you have to take in lots. Liberal spending+conservative taxing = bad.

[Cain]

Well, Reagan inspired Republicans also believe that huge tax cuts will trigger unprecedented growth, and as the economy grows, tax collections *increase*.

It's okay to run a deficit if you're investing in critical social infrastructure.

[Tripwire]

Cutting taxes, it basic terms, allows for businesses to invest money in new areas of growth, hence providing more jobs.

There is one major flaw in the Bush tax cut plan, it's too broad. It should be dedicated to helping the service sector of the economy. The manufacturing sector is getting smaller and smaller each year with more jobs going overseas. This can't be helped.

[Tone-Loc]

Originally posted by Tripwire
The manufacturing sector is getting smaller and smaller each year with more jobs going overseas. This can't be helped.

Bush probably thinks his new Super-Duper-Ultra-New "Overtime" policy changes will help businesses work their employees more, for less money. Sure they might get some comp time or vacation days as compensation for working over 40 hours, but of course you won't be able to roll any of those over to the next year. So you will either have to use those hours or lose them. But of course, when your review comes around or layoffs come around, and you have all that time off on your record... which will make your boss want to keep you over the guy that never takes off, or doesn't have a life and doesn't care if he loses those hours, etc... ahhhhhh, corporate America. But where have all our family values in this country gone?! You damn, liberals!

[ZeusofIowa]

Sucks

The rich want to keep their money, not invest in small companies.

[AGT-WildBillGates]

The only question you have to ask is "who can spend your money better?you or the government?" I think I can handel my own money(casino here I come.

[Tripwire]

just a note: If you're only skills are in doing mindless repeatative tasks, odds are the job market for you will not be very good.

[Halfbreed]

YAY ANOTHER LIBERAL BASHING BUSH THREAD!
you guys need to get some new material..

It is common sense it takes years sometimes close to a decade before an economic package shows any signs of anything. Clinton was riding on the economy created by reagan and bush. When clinton came into office he immediatly destroyed special operations physical intelligence gathering within the CIA. Destroyed the economy which our current president would have had even excluding 9/11 and ignored al-queda FOUR times and could have prevented 9/11 had he done something. The fact that clinton got head from some bimbo secretary intern i dont care about its the way he lied under oath and then refered to her as "that woman" when the relationship was clearly more then just "that woman." Most people only know about monica and havent heard about the 10 - 11 other woman who have never spoken out about how they fealt clinton went over the line and assaulted them aswell. How about clintons racism and creating a confederate day when he was governor? As young Bill came of age he poked fun at his uncle's "notorious racism", but gratefully accepted his help to escape the draft. The world was a lot better when reagan and bush sr were in office but the sad truth is bush jr will fix the economy and make the world safer for most likely a next democratic president to ride on like clinton and appear to be a good president when they are really not.

[Tone-Loc]

Originally posted by knockout
YAY ANOTHER LIBERAL BASHING BUSH THREAD!
you guys need to get some new material..

It is common sense it takes years sometimes close to a decade before an economic package shows any signs of anything...

Reagan/Bush I were in the white house for 12 years. I think we know where Reaganomics (aka Trickle Down Economics) got us, by the time Bush I was ending his only term in office. How many trillion dollars in debt were we?

Now I don't think Clinton did anything extra special, except be in office during the dot com boom, all I know is that we had a major defict after 12 years of Reaganomics, we wiped it out and had a surplus by the time W got into office, and we are already staring down a deficit, contributed to in part, but NOT SOLELY due to 9/11.

[snaggle]

Originally posted by Tone-Loc
Now I don't think Clinton did anything extra special, except be in office during the dot com boom, all I know is that we had a major defict after 12 years of Reaganomics, we wiped it out and had a surplus by the time W got into office, and we are already staring down a deficit, contributed to in part, but NOT SOLELY due to 9/11.

We're finally seeing the effects of the dot com boom/bust. Tech companies are dropping faster now than ever before, it's nearly impossible to break into most of the "tech industry" jobs due to downsizing and the oversized supply of workers. Many "high skill" workers from other specialties are now out of work/unable to find work, which is adding to the already growing unskilled labor force currently out of work. Advertising companies are popular on the menu for downsizing/capsizing industries, ever since 9/11 the market has been bleak/non-existant for all but the largest agencies. Nearly every "niche" market is seeing cutbacks, causing the abnormal rise in national unemployment. Now with these retarded tax breaks...I fear the worst is yet to come.