Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General The fallout: Democrats rethinking health care bill

Jobs?


Tim, are you suggesting that maybe someone in government should take a look at the employment situation around the country? Maybe if they did they would notice that my lack of insurance is directly proportionate to my lack of a job. The better my job pays, the better insurance I can afford.


The economy? Ya think? You could be right.

The economy? The only thing the government can do to help the economy instead of destroy it, as it is wont to do, is to eliminate all taxes on wealth, capital and the returns therefrom and step back and let the market thrive on its own.

Hot damned Irked. You are finally seeing the light and Ma agrees with you. I will take it one step further--the federal government should provide all US taxpayers with an annual tax credit cash money refund commensurate with their amount of earned or unearned income. That should get the old economic wheels a turning!

Any talk of cutting payroll taxes is anathema. Payroll taxes are the backbone of a fair tax system, as they are equally distributed among all employees and do not punish the successful. The removal of progressive punishment for success (income tax, corporate tax, death tax, capital gains tax) is what needs to be eliminated. The government passing out money to all and sundry is another abomination. The government needs to disappear. It is superfluous. Everyone can get whatever they deserve by paying for it directly.

You bring tears to my eyes Irked. As some have said before “Get government out of my Medicare” Or Medicaid as is may be. Pray tell, just what in the Phuket don’t they understand?

That is irrelavent as long as they maintain their current level of understanding.

Just a few comments in response to Ma's lengthy post (I knew the agreement couldn't last!)[Okay, so far it appears we're still in agreement - oh, and the part about motorcycles too][I commented earlier about the inherent illogic in those two votes, and I don't mean to use your sons as exemplars, but it is directly applicable here. I'm sorry that apparently their schools, fine as I am certain they are, because Massachusetts has some fine schools, do not offer courses in logic, my friend.

I do find it odd, though, that someone who has frequently railed against government spending and "big brother"'s intrusion into the marketplace now argues that the government has a responsibility to work on employment issues? Isn't that a little inconsistent? What about the free market, open negotiation between employers and labor? What about "what's good for me and screw everyone else?" I don't think that the pro-jobs and anti-HCR positions are logically consistent. Perhaps you can elucidate? Seriously, I don't understand.]

[No, the voters, your sons included, gave up on Congress last week, and on having any say in what it does, anyway.]

[I'm honestly not sure what you are getting at here, Ma. Is it that the President should only pursue issues that are popular (which, of course, become unpopular just as fast)? If so, is that leadership or followship, and don't we decry the lack of leadership and only following the polls here frequently? Is it that the President is precluded from pursuing a policy that he believes is right, even if unpopular? Is it only about elections, or about public policy? Do you realize that these voters (not the majority, mind you, but the low information 10% that swing the electorate) won't support legislators who vote in favor of job creation legislation either if it represents expenditure of funds. It is odd, really, that people are willing to give money to invest in stocks and bonds for the potential of a private return, but won't pay for public infrastructure that has a nearly guaranteed public, including personal, return. Again, logic seems completely inapplicable to these decisions. (I'm talking about the voters here, Ma, not you personally.)]

The federal government cannot create jobs. The federal government does not produce anything, excluding confusion. They are, in effect, the board of directors of the United States. Like a board of directors, their job is to set a direction and oversee production.

If we think of Congress as a board of directors then their job is to create the environment for growth. If the government wants to stimulate the jobs market they must decide upon a course of action that will encourage the various divisions within the company to thrive. The first thing that any good board does is decide on what product will be produced that has the best chance of success. Next they decide how much funding it will take to create a successful product. Finally, they approve the budget for the year and allow the various divisions to spend the funds that they approved. If the product is successful, new jobs are created, if not the product is placed on the virtual scrap heap.

The federal government's only influence in job creation is tax policy. Tax policy drives any corporate production in the economy. As fund become available, jobs are created. As funds shrink, jobs are eliminated. The reason is simple, there is only so much money to be used and as the economy shrinks hard decisions have to be made to ensure corporate success. You can look at this explanation and say America isn't a corporation, but it really is and always has been.

So, we have this big pile of money in the middle of the table. It has to be allocated to the product that will best serve the interests of the corporation, the United States. Many in Congress are arguing that those funds are best spent on the general good and welfare of the citizenry, a worthy sentiment, but the pile on the table is getting smaller and smaller because the corporations product offerings are being eliminated; in effect the company is being restructured. In any scenario a decision point has to be reached, do we get smaller and eliminate positions within the company or do we expand, invest our corporate budget in new products or expansion of a successful existing product line?

The federal government is a parasite on American Society, it has a symbiotic relationship with the host at times, but it is still an organism that only takes resourses. It does, in theory, have health benefits but like any parasite it eventually becomes too intrusive to ignore. We have reached the point where the federal government has become too big and intrusive. It is devouring society in an effort to sustain itself at the expense of the host. It cannot help itself, that is its nature. Scott Brown's election this week is a reaction to the fact that the symbiosis that had once existed is no longer in balance. The host is beginning to feel the effects of the parasite and wants to reverse the damage. The parasite does not want to be slowed and is fighting for survival.

All of that goblity gookis just to explain why HCR is dead. The host, in this case the United States, is feeling the effects of the parasite, the Federal Government. We have reached the point where a decision has to be made, do we care for the corporation's divisions and grow them, or do we shrink the pile of money in the middle of the table and shrink the divisions?

Obama's preference is obvious, he wants to transfer the funds in the middle of the table into the control of the board of directors and let them micromanage the corporation's assets. He doesn't trust the division managers to grow their division, he doesn't trust the employees to do their job. He wants central management, with all major decisions being made by the board of directors. The problem with central management is they are isolated from the product. They do not know what the market place will buy or reject. They have a vision of what they think will sell, and they do not look outward at the business enviornment's needs.

My children, they are the byproduct of the corporation's decisions. If the correct decisions are made, that byproduct is fully engaged and productive. If the incorrect decisions are made, that byproduct sits in a warehouse waiting to be leased. I can think of no way for the board of directors to successfully grow the corporation without investing more money in the business. Since the board of directors are the parasites in this example, their influence on the health of the host must be either reduced or eliminated. The energy it is taking to fight of the infection is taking a toll on the overall health of the host.

What the hell am I saying? Look, if the tax rate goes up, and employment goes down, individual and corporate contribution have to go up. If HCR were passed the tax rate would increase, it would not create enough jobs to offset that increase, so the individual and corporate contribution would increase. The corporation, whose only job is to turn a profit, will do what is necessary by increasing prices and cutting jobs, further requireing the tax rate to increase. Repeat the last sentence.

In Utopia, corporations would not care about reduced profits, in reality, it is all they care about.

NW,
I know that this must be a bitter pill, and I can sympathize. History proves that the body politic knows better than Congress does. Private enterprize is engrained in the American being. Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Bill Gates, all are considered quasi heros. Americans have a natural distrust of the government, they do not like it but accept it as necessary, as long as they believe it is responsive to them and not the other way around. Americans do not want the government to do for them what they can do for themselves. It is this reason that we have been so successful for the last century.

People like Obama, but not his policies. People like the idea of HCR, but not if they will have to sacrifice to make it happen. People hate taxes, but pay them every week with just a little grumbling. Americans want to be left to their owd devices, they want to be able to ride a motorcycle across the great plains without having to get permission, they want to be able to take a cruise without having to get permission, they want to be free of restraint. They do not want their government to put the success of 7% of the country ahead of the success of 93% of the country. They feel that they already pay high enough taxes and are bold enough, when told about European tax rates, to tell you that they don't care about Europe. That it isn't their fault that Europe let their governments take over their lives.

It is the whole Land of the Free thing. Some slogans take on a life of their own.

As I have been advocating for the past 6 months; If you want a real stimulus program suspend the payroll tax. That would put billions of dollars of new money into the hand of the people who know best how to use it.