Conspiracy to bring down America....

[Moot]

"A survey last month of more than 1,000 chief financial officers by Duke University and CFO magazine showed that nearly 60 percent of those executives don't expect to bring their employment back to pre-recession levels until 2012 or later -- even though they're projecting a 12 percent rise in earnings and a 9 percent boost in capital spending over the next year."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071405960.html

Corporate America has downsized and are sitting on over $2 trillion in cash. They don't need to expand or hire new employees as long as they continue to make profit until after the 2012 election.

The Chamber of Commerce is advising it's membership not to hire or do anything until after the 2012 election.

Big Banks are naked short selling small banks putting them at risk of take over by the big banks, which will consolidate all the money into the hands of few "too big to fail" banks. JPMorgan recieved a bigger profit last quarter than analysts had predicted.

Bailed-out small US banks face takeover risk
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/42792

95% of all businesses in the US are small businesses. If they can't get credit or borrow from the small banks, they can't grow, hire new employees and risk going out of business.

Without access to capital, there is no capitalism.

Republicans in congress blocked the extension of the unemployment bill and then went on vacation. Middle class Americans who were laid off and can't find new work are now finding themselves below the poverty line. Unemployment is expected to rise as people are getting more and more desperate.

Monsanto has taken over the bulk of agriculture and could control quantity and quality of food and prices.

The Health Care Bill was watered down to favor the insurance companies and Big Pharma.

Republicans in congress are protecting credit card companies so they can continue to gouge consumers with high fees, penalties and interest rates, putting more people in debt they can't afford. Many of those dependant on credit cards are the unemployed.

Republicans tried to block legislation for financial reform and regulations that would protect taxpayers from having to bail out banks that take on too much risk. It remains to be seen if the new financial reform bill recently passed has any teeth. I'm not holding my breath.

Republican's are protecting BP's interests over the interests of the Gulf coast residents, small businesses and the environment. Soon everyone in the Gulf will be dependant or working for BP

The governments hands are tied and limited as to what it can do to spur the economy or correct the situation because during the Bush administration, Greenspan lowered interest rates to near zero while Republicans have made raising taxes political poison for any politician to even suggest it.

Obama promised to raise taxes on the uber wealthy and has yet to lift a finger to do what he promised. Instead, congress may let the Bush tax cuts lapse thereby raising taxes on the middle class who still have a job and putting more burden on them.

Is anyone seeing a pattern here? Because to me it looks like a conspiracy to bring down the U.S economy in order to put all the power and money into the hands of a few elite. The so called Free Market is nothing but warm fuzzy name for a totalitarian dictatorship.

[JWeeks]

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/06/eco...-f-cooley.html
The Curse Of Economic Uncertainty

Thomas F. Cooley, 07.07.10, 06:00 AM EDT Fiscal austerity is not the problem-- lack of clarity is.

Every sentient being knows that the U.S. faces serious fiscal problems, but there is a lot of uncertainty about how extensive they are. The massive fiscal stimulus masked many of the problems facing state and local governments. Those problems are coming to the fore, and these governments are being forced to slash spending and employment. Nearly every state and local government across the country is looking at large budget shortfalls for their 2011 fiscal years, most of which begin on July 1, 2010. Since they are generally required by state constitutions or local charters to balance their budgets, they will have no choice except to raise taxes and/or make large cutbacks and lay off workers to bring spending and revenue into line. There is also a lot of uncertainty about the extent of underfunded pension liabilities and the impact they will have because they do not typically show up on budgets.

Everyone knows there is a problem but not what the solutions are going to be. The Obama administration has created a deficit commission to study the problem, but they won't report until the end of the year--after the midterm elections. Details are important, but this is not the Manhattan Project. The new British government came up with a plausible start on fiscal responsibility in very short order. Given the rhetoric and previous policy initiatives of the Obama administration, it is virtually certain that corporations and wealthy individuals are going to face higher taxes, but in what form?


The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that U.S. corporations are sitting on $1.6 trillion in cash reserves, a record amount, because they are reluctant to expand in the uncertain policy environment. Even looking at the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 index of blue chips--and stripping out financials, which are required by regulators to keep large cash reserves in order to cushion against risk--the cash-on-hand number is a whopping $1.1 trillion. Would a more transparent, business-friendly environment turn that cash into investment and jobs?


....


Our fiscal problems are daunting, and they suggest why a lot of folks are reluctant to just assume we can spend more on stimulus and pay the piper later. But they are not unsolvable. In the end I am convinced of one thing: The worst thing is that we don't have a plan.

The only thing that business hate more than high taxes and regulations is uncertainty about higher taxes and regulations.

If Obama performs according to the historic model, he will propose a "undistributed profits tax" before too long.

[PanAM]

Dirty Little Secrets the Republicans Don't Want You to Know

The Republicans have a set of dirty little (actually not so little) secrets they don't what you to know -- and certainly don't want you to think about when you go to the polls in November.

And the fact is that some of those secrets could provide Democrats with silver bullets this fall. But first let's recall the context.

Over the course of eight short years -- between 2000 and 2008 -- the Republicans methodically executed their plan to transform American society. They systematically transferred wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- slashing taxes for the wealthy. They eviscerated the rules that held Wall Street, Big Oil and private insurance companies accountable to the public.

They allowed and encouraged the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks that ultimately collapsed the economy and cost eight million Americans their jobs. They ignored exploding health care costs, tried to privatize Social Security, gave the drug companies open season to gouge American consumers and presided over a decline in real incomes averaging $2,000 per family. They entangled America in an enormously costly, unnecessary war in Iraq, pursued a directionless policy that left Afghanistan to fester, and sullied America's good name throughout the world.

Their economic policy of cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating big Corporations failed to create jobs. In fact, over his eight year term, George Bush's administration created exactly zero net private sector jobs. They inherited a Federal budget with surpluses as far as the eye could see and rolled up more debt than all of the previous Presidents in the over 200 years of American history. And in the end they left the economy in collapse.

Some of the things they believe are not only dangerous to the economy, luckily they are also politically radioactive. And quite remarkably, many key Republicans are actually willing to say them out loud. Here are a few:

* Meet Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. If the Republicans once again take control of the House, he will be the Chair of the Budget Committee. Ryan believes -- and says out loud -- that Medicare, one of the most popular Federal programs in history, should be abolished and replaced with vouchers for private insurance. Let's recall that one of the ways Republicans stirred up opposition to health insurance reform was by falsely accusing Democrats of wanting to cut Medicare. They convinced some unwitting seniors that "Government" should keep its hands off Medicare -- which is, of course, a "Government" program. Democrats need to make it crystal clear in this campaign that Republicans -- who opposed Medicare from its inception -- actually want to abolish the program and hand over control of health care for America's seniors to the same private insurance companies responsible for driving up rates three times faster than wages while their profits have exploded.

* Congressman John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, has endorsed another Ryan proposal to raise the retirement age of Social Security to 70 years old -- a proposal that might go over fine with a guy like Boehner who makes speeches for a living. But it won't be very popular at all with someone who has laid bricks, or run an earth mover, or waited tables for forty-five years.

* The whole Republican crew wants to resurrect the failed Bush proposal to "privatize" Social Security. The defeat of Bush's privatization plan was the turning point in the Bush Presidency. It was all downhill from there. Yet -- whether it's to pad the investment accounts of their friends on Wall Street or because they are "private markets uber alles true believers" -- the Republicans want to try it again. Only this time retirees won't have to work very hard to imagine what it would have been like if their Social Security checks had plummeted in value the way their 401K's did when the market collapsed just two years ago.

* The Republicans want to weaken and repeal the new law to rein in the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. Most Republicans and Democrats voted to bail out the big banks to prevent a 1930's style market collapse. The difference is that Democrats supported legislation to rein in their recklessness -- that had cost 8 million Americans their jobs -- and assure that a bailout was never allowed to happen again. But with very few exceptions, the Republicans voted to a person against holding Wall Street accountable. Given a chance, they plan to team up with their pals on Wall Street to free them to return to their reckless ways at will. In fact, they told the titans of Wall Street as much in fundraising meetings, where those "masters of the Universe" were asked to ante up. Republicans claim to oppose more Wall Street bailouts, but they refuse to support legislation that would prevent one in the future and hold Wall Street accountable. That -- coupled with those big contributions from Wall Street -- is a position that is very difficult for average voters to swallow. In fact, the polling says it's down right toxic.

* Republicans have consistently voted against extending unemployment benefits to workers who have been laid off because of Bush-era policies and the recklessness of Wall Street. Remember, people who get unemployment benefits -- by definition -- are looking for jobs that the economy doesn't provide. In addition, many Republicans actually believe that the best way to spur employment is to lower the minimum wage.

* Finally, meet Congressman Joe Barton. If the Republicans win back control of Congress, he would once again most likely serve as the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee -- the Committee that oversees the oil industry. Congressman Barton has never met an oil company he doesn't like. In fact, he's the guy who actually apologized to BP when they were forced by the Obama Administration to take economic responsibility for the disastrous Gulf oil spill. As a political matter, that's like apologizing to Jack the Ripper.

These are politically radioactive positions that do, in fact, define the core of Republican policy if they were once again to control the gavel in either House of Congress.

[Moot]

Originally Posted by JWeeks

http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/06/eco...-f-cooley.html
The Curse Of Economic Uncertainty

Thomas F. Cooley, 07.07.10, 06:00 AM EDT Fiscal austerity is not the problem-- lack of clarity is.

The only thing that business hate more than high taxes and regulations is uncertainty about higher taxes and regulations.

If Obama performs according to the historic model, he will propose a "undistributed profits tax" before too long.

GARBAGE!!!!

The wealthy business elite are deliberately sabotaging the economy to keep their tax cuts and rape the American middle class.

Reagan's Budget director David Stockman admits that supply-side economics are merely a front for redistributing wealth to the richest Americans

In an interview with the Atlantic Monthly, budget director David Stockman admits that the Reagan "supply-side" economic policies are "a Trojan Horse to bring down the top [income tax] rate." Stockman explains that the term "trickle-down economics," widely avoided in favor of the more benign "supply-side economics," means that the government gives the vast majority of the tax-cut benefits to the wealthy, and in theory those benefits will "trickle down" to everyone else, a phenomenon that, predictably, never happens. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" says Stockman, "so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.'" This economic policy will be revived in 2001 by George W. Bush, who tells the American people, "Those in the greatest need should receive the greatest help;" unfortunately, in judging the impact of Bush's tax cuts, it is apparent that those Bush feels are in the greatest need are those making in excess of $373,000, as they are the ones to receive "the greatest help" from his tax policies. (Atlantic Monthly/Paul Waldman)

http://www.iraqtimeline.com/1981.html

Bush's Data Dump: The administration is hiding bad economic news. Here's how....
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085481/

Your so called free market is nothing but a scam being played on the American people right before your very eyes, but you are so cow eyed with your phoney ideologal fervor to see anything that isn't hand fed to you from that fraudnews con artist, Glenn Beck. Sucker.

[JWeeks]

Originally Posted by PanAM

Dirty Little Secrets the Republicans Don't Want You to Know

The Republicans have a set of dirty little (actually not so little) secrets they don't what you to know -- and certainly don't want you to think about when you go to the polls in November.

And the fact is that some of those secrets could provide Democrats with silver bullets this fall. But first let's recall the context.

Over the course of eight short years -- between 2000 and 2008 -- the Republicans methodically executed their plan to transform American society. They systematically transferred wealth from the middle class to the wealthiest two percent of Americans -- slashing taxes for the wealthy. They eviscerated the rules that held Wall Street, Big Oil and private insurance companies accountable to the public.

Sorry; claims with no data backing them up. The rich, wealthy though they are, still are paying a higher percentage of taxes than ever before.

They allowed and encouraged the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks that ultimately collapsed the economy and cost eight million Americans their jobs. They ignored exploding health care costs, tried to privatize Social Security, gave the drug companies open season to gouge American consumers and presided over a decline in real incomes averaging $2,000 per family. They entangled America in an enormously costly, unnecessary war in Iraq, pursued a directionless policy that left Afghanistan to fester, and sullied America's good name throughout the world.

Interesting how those jobs losses only started after 2006, when the democrats took over control of congress.

Their economic policy of cutting taxes for the wealthy and deregulating big Corporations failed to create jobs. In fact, over his eight year term, George Bush's administration created exactly zero net private sector jobs. They inherited a Federal budget with surpluses as far as the eye could see and rolled up more debt than all of the previous Presidents in the over 200 years of American history. And in the end they left the economy in collapse.

Yet the debt of the last two years makes Bush's debt pale in comparison.

Some of the things they believe are not only dangerous to the economy, luckily they are also politically radioactive. And quite remarkably, many key Republicans are actually willing to say them out loud. Here are a few:

* Meet Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. If the Republicans once again take control of the House, he will be the Chair of the Budget Committee. Ryan believes -- and says out loud -- that Medicare, one of the most popular Federal programs in history, should be abolished and replaced with vouchers for private insurance. Let's recall that one of the ways Republicans stirred up opposition to health insurance reform was by falsely accusing Democrats of wanting to cut Medicare. They convinced some unwitting seniors that "Government" should keep its hands off Medicare -- which is, of course, a "Government" program. Democrats need to make it crystal clear in this campaign that Republicans -- who opposed Medicare from its inception -- actually want to abolish the program and hand over control of health care for America's seniors to the same private insurance companies responsible for driving up rates three times faster than wages while their profits have exploded.

And yet it is democrats that are forcing the American public to buy insurance policies from the same private insurance companies that they decry.

* Congressman John Boehner, the House Minority Leader, has endorsed another Ryan proposal to raise the retirement age of Social Security to 70 years old -- a proposal that might go over fine with a guy like Boehner who makes speeches for a living. But it won't be very popular at all with someone who has laid bricks, or run an earth mover, or waited tables for forty-five years.

Much better that we simply wait for Social Security to run out of money. Social Security was supposed to take in more money than it spent until 2016. Turns out that 2009 was the year.

* The whole Republican crew wants to resurrect the failed Bush proposal to "privatize" Social Security. The defeat of Bush's privatization plan was the turning point in the Bush Presidency. It was all downhill from there. Yet -- whether it's to pad the investment accounts of their friends on Wall Street or because they are "private markets uber alles true believers" -- the Republicans want to try it again. Only this time retirees won't have to work very hard to imagine what it would have been like if their Social Security checks had plummeted in value the way their 401K's did when the market collapsed just two years ago.

Much better for Uncle Sam to hold on all of your retirement funds for you.

* The Republicans want to weaken and repeal the new law to rein in the recklessness of the big Wall Street banks. Most Republicans and Democrats voted to bail out the big banks to prevent a 1930's style market collapse. The difference is that Democrats supported legislation to rein in their recklessness -- that had cost 8 million Americans their jobs -- and assure that a bailout was never allowed to happen again. But with very few exceptions, the Republicans voted to a person against holding Wall Street accountable. Given a chance, they plan to team up with their pals on Wall Street to free them to return to their reckless ways at will. In fact, they told the titans of Wall Street as much in fundraising meetings, where those "masters of the Universe" were asked to ante up. Republicans claim to oppose more Wall Street bailouts, but they refuse to support legislation that would prevent one in the future and hold Wall Street accountable. That -- coupled with those big contributions from Wall Street -- is a position that is very difficult for average voters to swallow. In fact, the polling says it's down right toxic.

The bailout was a democrat idea; republican suggestions for alternatives to just giving banks taxpayer cash weren't even considered by the democrat controlled congress. Maybe that is why the democrats received more campaign cash from the bankers and wall street than the republicans.

* Republicans have consistently voted against extending unemployment benefits to workers who have been laid off because of Bush-era policies and the recklessness of Wall Street. Remember, people who get unemployment benefits -- by definition -- are looking for jobs that the economy doesn't provide. In addition, many Republicans actually believe that the best way to spur employment is to lower the minimum wage.

Wouldn't it have been nice is that stimulus money had been used in a way to create jobs rather than just bail out government employees?

* Finally, meet Congressman Joe Barton. If the Republicans win back control of Congress, he would once again most likely serve as the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee -- the Committee that oversees the oil industry. Congressman Barton has never met an oil company he doesn't like. In fact, he's the guy who actually apologized to BP when they were forced by the Obama Administration to take economic responsibility for the disastrous Gulf oil spill. As a political matter, that's like apologizing to Jack the Ripper.

So, if BP is like a criminal conspiracy, why does the government continue to leave them in charge of capping the well and cleaning up the spill?

These are politically radioactive positions that do, in fact, define the core of Republican policy if they were once again to control the gavel in either House of Congress.

Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, and more spending.
Crank up the money machine at the Fed and spend some more.

[JWeeks]

Originally Posted by Moot

GARBAGE!!!!

The wealthy business elite are deliberately sabotaging the economy to keep their tax cuts and rape the American middle class.

Reagan's Budget director David Stockman admits that supply-side economics are merely a front for redistributing wealth to the richest Americans

In an interview with the Atlantic Monthly, budget director David Stockman admits that the Reagan "supply-side" economic policies are "a Trojan Horse to bring down the top [income tax] rate." Stockman explains that the term "trickle-down economics," widely avoided in favor of the more benign "supply-side economics," means that the government gives the vast majority of the tax-cut benefits to the wealthy, and in theory those benefits will "trickle down" to everyone else, a phenomenon that, predictably, never happens. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" says Stockman, "so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.'" This economic policy will be revived in 2001 by George W. Bush, who tells the American people, "Those in the greatest need should receive the greatest help;" unfortunately, in judging the impact of Bush's tax cuts, it is apparent that those Bush feels are in the greatest need are those making in excess of $373,000, as they are the ones to receive "the greatest help" from his tax policies. (Atlantic Monthly/Paul Waldman)

http://www.iraqtimeline.com/1981.html

Bush's Data Dump: The administration is hiding bad economic news. Here's how....
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085481/

Your so called free market is nothing but a scam being played on the American people right before your very eyes, but you are so cow eyed with your phoney ideologal fervor to see anything that isn't hand fed to you from that fraudnews con artist, Glenn Beck. Sucker.

OK. let's just go down thie road a bit. The wealthy elite (all those people in charge of small business included) are sitting on cash either because they are unsure about what the future holds (also known as "what shoe will drop next), or they are sitting on cash to embarass Obama and get the democrats out of office.

So, two questions...if either of those were true, what would it take to get these guys to start spending money and hiring again?

Second question....Obama is going to be in office for another 2.5 years. Are businessmen going to sit on a pile of money for that time if they can see a way of making a profit by not sitting on it? (Hint: these are supposedly greedy guys who will do anything for a buck).