Fastest growing job market: federal government!

[Danube]

The emerging gov-media-union complex is beginning to look like the communist party in USSR.

 

[Kappo]

There must be an example you can give?

My company, for one. We aren't hiring despite needing people and having the income to pay for them for now. We've weathered the recession quite well, but the changes Obama has planned have us on a hiring/cost of living increase freeze. Founded or not, that is the reality. The healthcare bill alone is going to cost us shitloads. Which means we just hire less people and lay off people where we can.

 

[Jhhnn]

Time for a history lesson....

Did you know that in France during that time period that cake meant fine bread (aka bread made with eggs, such as pastries, etc)? Did you also know that there was a law the dictated to french bakers that if they were to run out of their cheap bread that they were to sell their fine bread at the cheap rates?

Whats does this mean?

Let them eat cake actually meant let them eat fine bread. When it was reported to the palace that there was no bread in the bakeries, the response from Marie was basically if theres no cheap bread then the bakeries need to sell them the fine bread at the cheap prices (as that was the law). Also, the size, weight and price of bread was regulated from medieval ties to the 1980's to the point where a baguettes price was on a fixed formula. So due to government price controls, bakers just didnt bake much bread because every sales was at a loss. Maybe this had something to do with the food riots?

Oh, and the Marie in this case? Well the original saying (Qu'ils mangent de la brioche) comes from Roussou's Confessions. A book published when Marie Antoinette was only 10 years old and still living in Austria. The most probably person to have said this was Queen Marie Therese, 100 years previous.

Yawn. Even your little history lesson shows that she lived in a fantasy...

 

[sandorski]

My company, for one. We aren't hiring despite needing people and having the income to pay for them for now. We've weathered the recession quite well, but the changes Obama has planned have us on a hiring/cost of living increase freeze. Founded or not, that is the reality. The healthcare bill alone is going to cost us shitloads. Which means we just hire less people and lay off people where we can.

Your Company has been killed off and you still have a Job. How does that work exactly?

 

[Kappo]

Your Company has been killed off and you still have a Job. How does that work exactly?

We aren't hiring. Thus, we are not currently competition to the Obama Hussein regime.

And yes, it is his administration that killed off the hiring, at least for us.

 

[sandorski]

We aren't hiring. Thus, we are not currently competition to the Obama Hussein regime.

And yes, it is his administration that killed off the hiring, at least for us.

Ah, so Government didn't "Kill off the competition". Got it.

 

[Kappo]

Ah, so Government didn't "Kill off the competition". Got it.

Are you retarded? Or just playing a middle school game?

 

[sandorski]

Are you retarded? Or just playing a middle school game?

Wut? Your words man. Perhaps you haven't heard about the recent Recession? I've heard it's pretty bad.

 

[Kappo]

Wut? Your words man. Perhaps you haven't heard about the recent Recession? I've heard it's pretty bad.

That would be fine if we hadnt had the best month EVER RECORDED for us in February.

 

[Slew Foot]

Sandorski is a retarded liberal. He even likes the Canucks.

 

[sandorski]

That would be fine if we hadnt had the best month EVER RECORDED for us in February.

Congrats.

 

[ericlp]

Good luck actually finding a job through USAJobs.gov. Boatloads of people are applying for them. If you aren't eligible for the Veterans' Preference, good luck.

Even if your a 3 purple heart, disabled, minority vet... Good Luck!

 

[CycloWizard]

Yawn. Even your little history lesson shows that she lived in a fantasy...

Yes, she was. The problem is that the fantasy was living was the same one you're living now.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

So, you think being invaded for our land (the companies and jobs went to more profitable countries and not needing to be taxed in triplicate) is a good thing?

I am not quite sure I follow you. Can you elaborate? I think labor costs were the main reasons companies left American soil. If they want to leave, fine, but maybe we should implement/raise tariffs on the goods that are imported?

I can think of a dozen different things that is, but none of them are "realist"

Again, I am not following you. Can you please specify what you mean?

Not to mention, the entire POINT of owning/starting a company is to make as large of a profit as possible. Having human cubicle fillers for tax breaks (if they show up at all) kinda goes against all that.

In principle, I agree completely. However, reality states that the tax base is shrinking. It isn't certain that all of the lost jobs will ever return or at least, return in the near future. At some point, our alternatives will be to either 1) raise taxes to huge levels on the remaining workers or 2) increase the tax base. And that will probably even happen with large spending cuts.

We can increase the tax base through a combination of measures, but the best way is to foster policies which encourage economic growth through consumer spending. Consumers can (oops, I mean SHOULD) only spend money that they have, which means they need to be employed. How do we accomplish that?

Look, I'm one of the "evil" top 10% income earners, and I realize that if the jobs don't come back and unemployment keeps getting extended, *I* am going to be the one hurting because at some point, my taxes will go through the roof. Additionally, if the jobs don't return, my company may suffer enough to have to let me go. I'm not saying create jobs using tax incentives because I am a kind-hearted person; I am saying do it to help the country and those of us who are employed and paying taxes.

 

[Jhhnn]

Let's see... In Obama's 2011 budget, we can cut Medicare ($498 billion), Social Security ($738 billion), and Income Security ($567 billion) for starters. That would give us a healthy surplus despite the current problem with the top 50% only paying 100% of the taxes.

edit: Source for the budget: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

*This* is fantasy.

Add the millions of people currently on SS to the ranks of the unemployed. Brilliant, particularly considering many are essentially unemployable.

Eliminate huge subsidies to the healthcare industry. Yeh, that'll increase employment, I'm sure.

Do away with unemployment insurance. Great Idea, but only if the objective is to further reduce net demand in the economy, create even more unemployment.

Are you pining for the idealizations of the Good Ol' Days? 1931, maybe? Because that's nearly what the implementation of deregulated capitalism has brought us. Your "ideas" would only reinforce the misery and discontent brought to us by the deliberate mismanagement of the Bush Admin and Reagan/GHWB Admins before it.

If you want to get an idea of where to start to actually reduce federal spending, click on the "hide mandatory spending" box in your NYT link. See that giant porkbarrel in the upper left? That's where to start.

And if you want to understand where Uncle Sam's revenue comes from, click here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

SS brings in almost as much revenue as income taxes... so if we're going to cut the program, then we ought to cut the taxes that support it, right? Oh, wait, that'd actually increase the deficit...

 

[Nemesis 1]

That would be fine if we hadnt had the best month EVER RECORDED for us in February.

Same with the company my wife and son works for , Business never been better . But they are starting to cry about O/T . As company has hiring freeze on . Because of cost of new employees. But I not complaining as long as its good for us, screw the rest right. screw america right .

 

[Nemesis 1]

*This* is fantasy.

Add the millions of people currently on SS to the ranks of the unemployed. Brilliant, particularly considering many are essentially unemployable.

Eliminate huge subsidies to the healthcare industry. Yeh, that'll increase employment, I'm sure.

Do away with unemployment insurance. Great Idea, but only if the objective is to further reduce net demand in the economy, create even more unemployment.

Are you pining for the idealizations of the Good Ol' Days? 1931, maybe? Because that's nearly what the implementation of deregulated capitalism has brought us. Your "ideas" would only reinforce the misery and discontent brought to us by the deliberate mismanagement of the Bush Admin and Reagan/GHWB Admins before it.

If you want to get an idea of where to start to actually reduce federal spending, click on the "hide mandatory spending" box in your NYT link. See that giant porkbarrel in the upper left? That's where to start.

And if you want to understand where Uncle Sam's revenue comes from, click here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

SS brings in almost as much revenue as income taxes... so if we're going to cut the program, then we ought to cut the taxes that support it, right? Oh, wait, that'd actually increase the deficit...

Bush admin. Though sucked had a dem. House and senate in majority . So howed Bush do it all by himself. Clinton is the one that set up New homes for everyone whether they could pay or not. It turned out they couldn't pay . Bush sucked but Clinton is the one that never F----- that women . In this case lady liberty.

 

[Budmantom]

The emerging gov-media-union complex is beginning to look like the communist party in USSR.

What do you mean by beginning?

 

[CycloWizard]

*This* is fantasy.

Add the millions of people currently on SS to the ranks of the unemployed. Brilliant, particularly considering many are essentially unemployable.

These people are already unemployed - what difference would it make?

Eliminate huge subsidies to the healthcare industry. Yeh, that'll increase employment, I'm sure.

Obviously you don't work in the healthcare industry, or you'd realize that these programs are the bane of the industry. They result in price fixing (both by government and, by default, by private insurers), arbitrary price cuts by government (see the recent 21% decrease for all Medicare billing), and a mind-boggling rate of no-shows for patients enrolled in these programs which has lead to many doctors refusing to see them altogether. The money is coming straight out of the paychecks of every working person in this country, IIRC, so the subsidy is simply taking money from the working and giving it to the non-working. These programs are a sham and an example of exactly how not to run such programs. But none of that matters, since I never said it would increase employment. If you're going to employ strawman tactics, you could at least try to pretend that your argument is related to what I said.

Do away with unemployment insurance. Great Idea, but only if the objective is to further reduce net demand in the economy, create even more unemployment.

Given the choice, I would always be better served taking a higher salary than having a government law forcing my employer to pay for unemployment insurance. If I were making this money instead of giving it to some mandatory "insurance" fund, then I would be able to save for my own contingency and invest the money. But none of that matters, as I never said that getting rid of unemployment insurance would do anything except decrease the deficit - yet another strawman. Just like your ignorant "Let them eat cake" comment, on which you have conveniently backtracked.

Are you pining for the idealizations of the Good Ol' Days? 1931, maybe? Because that's nearly what the implementation of deregulated capitalism has brought us. Your "ideas" would only reinforce the misery and discontent brought to us by the deliberate mismanagement of the Bush Admin and Reagan/GHWB Admins before it.

I never mentioned anything about regulation in this thread, but thanks for yet another strawman. I merely suggested injecting reality back into your socialist wonderland, where money grows on trees, hookers and blow are mandatory for everyone (but only if they don't work and don't pay taxes), and government is the answer to every problem which it helped create.

If you want to get an idea of where to start to actually reduce federal spending, click on the "hide mandatory spending" box in your NYT link. See that giant porkbarrel in the upper left? That's where to start.

I recommended getting rid of the lion's share of the "mandatory spending" because it's not mandatory at all - it is simply government's likely unconstitutional promise to spend inordinate amounts of money that it doesn't have. If our government was a corporation and behaving this way (squandering trillions of tax dollars which it doesn't have, then calling on the taxpayer to bail it out for its irresponsible behavior), you would be demanding that their entire board be put before a firing squad. You are a grade A hypocrite. But you'll never see it because you are an ideological zombie.

And if you want to understand where Uncle Sam's revenue comes from, click here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

SS brings in almost as much revenue as income taxes... so if we're going to cut the program, then we ought to cut the taxes that support it, right? Oh, wait, that'd actually increase the deficit...

Yes, that's true - for now. It's also true that, according to the Encyclopedia of Stupidity, shortsightedness is one of the defining characteristics of stupidity. I don't think you understand how investments work, or you would know that when the input is equal to the rate of consumption, but we know the rate of consumption is going to increase with no expectation that the rate of input will increase. This leads to a negative accumulation of money - larger deficits. I can prove this on an abacus.