September 19, 2011
Obama Hates Jobs

President Obama hates jobs.

Well, OK: President Obama hates private sector jobs.

Well, OK: President Obama hates not having a maximum of government power over businesses and jobs, and would gladly sacrifice private-sector, non-union, non-government-controlled, jobs for the mere opportunity to try to create far fewer jobs under the thumb of government, whether under the NLRB or direct government subsidies.

How else to explain taking $1.5 trillion out of an economy that needs capital to grow jobs? He certainly can't believe that it is better for job creation to funnel that money out of the private sector and into government only to come back to the private sector in ways he thinks is more appropriate, with strings attached every step of the way. That's just stupid. No, it makes much more sense that he simply wants government control over those jobs.

And similarly, how else to explain the Boeing situation? Here we have a company actually creating jobs, and lots of them. They decide, for many reasons, to open a new plant in South Carolina. Probably, one of those reasons is the lower costs of labor: not just in not having to pay union wages, but also in not having to spend time/money dealing with the union. So they open the new plant, and hire thousands of workers. Not a single union job is lost due to the new plant; on the contrary, more union workers have been hired by Boeing. The fact is that not a single person was harmed in any way by opening the new plant.

So: thousands of new employees hired, no jobs lost at other locations, making a product that's been creating, and will continue to create and maintain, even more jobs across the sector.

And what does Obama do with this success story? He tries to kill it. Literally. He is trying to shut down the S.C. plant, for no reason other than that the unions don't control the jobs there. Boeing did nothing wrong whatsoever, broke no laws, and violated no code, other than than the (in some states) unwritten rule, "thou shalt not hire nonunion workers." They are jobs, yes, but not the right kind of jobs.

When Obama says his main goal is to create jobs, we know he's lying. If that were his main goal, he would not be seeking to destroy thousands of jobs in South Carolina just because they are not the kind of jobs he approves of. He would not be taking $1.5 trillion out of the economy. Those are things you just don't do when you're trying to create jobs.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Posted by pudge at September 19, 2011 07:40 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Sadly, he does believe that big gov is smarter than the collective free market. Perhaps when this man is gone we will see the discrediting of Keynes and Krugman as well as the apparent liberal love affair with "smart" (read that as highly educated)people who know better than the rest of us due to their accreditations. My father-in-law had an 8th grade education yet started and ran 4 seperate succesful businesses and has a far greater understanding of the value of the free market than does the president and all of his advisors.

Posted by: Borderland on September 19, 2011 09:07 AM
2. Bruce: I thought about letting you post again, but then you had to go and tell lies about me. Again. And your explicit ban-evading doesn't help your cause.

Posted by: pudge on September 19, 2011 09:11 AM
3. Bruce2: The rule of law doesn't matter to conservatives if it gets in the way of their ideology. Nor does it matter that the main thrust is that people need capital to get the economy moving, and yet the banks are sitting on billions after they were bailed out. If the banks would lend, most of these problems would go away, and we could stabilize our debt by getting the rich to pay their fair share. Same way that we could stabilize Social Security through 2050 simply by getting rid of the lid on the Social Security tax.

But of course, we could simply do more tax cuts and deregulation, which got us in this position in the first place.

Posted by: LionelHutzEsq on September 19, 2011 09:15 AM
4. Lionel:
The banks won't lend because they still have trillions of dollars of worthless mortgages on their books. If they admit the extent of their losses, another panic is in the wings.

And this time, the US Government is out of money.

Posted by: Eric on September 19, 2011 09:18 AM
5. Lionel: The rule of law doesn't matter to conservatives if it gets in the way of their ideology.

False. Such a person is, by definition, not very conservative.


Nor does it matter that the main thrust is that people need capital to get the economy moving, and yet the banks are sitting on billions after they were bailed out.

Yes, thanks entirely to government intervention. Government caused that problem. And you think you can fix it by taking MORE money from businesses?!


If the banks would lend, most of these problems would go away

Then focus on the banks! You're basically admitting Obama's fix doesn't address the problem.


... and we could stabilize our debt by getting the rich to pay their fair share.

You're lying. The rich DO pay their fair share. In fact, they pay far more than their fair share.


Same way that we could stabilize Social Security through 2050 simply by getting rid of the lid on the Social Security tax.

If you do that and make no other changes, then this solves no problems at all, because the people who pay more in S.S. tax -- and by the way, this would (again) violate Obama's pledge to not increase taxes, since the "lid" is much smaller than his magic $250K number -- because when people pay more into S.S., they get more when they retire. So you need to change that, too, which transforms S.S. into a pure entitlement, which means it gets significantly less popular support, and S.S. is set up this way specifically to have that broad popular support you want to put in jeopardy.

Besides, it's a pretty economically stupid way to do it: means testing accomplishes a similar end, but much more simply and straightforwardly. Of course, means testing does not accomplish the statist goal of keeping everyone under the thumb of government: the fewer people drawing on S.S., the fewer people support S.S., and we can't have that!


But of course, we could simply do more tax cuts and deregulation, which got us in this position in the first place.

You're lying. The facts completely prove you wrong. There was not a single removed regulation that led to where we are, and it's a proven fact that our current tax rates and (essentially) the same deductions etc. gave us a much higher level of revenue before the recession hit. To blame deregulation for something that wasn't deregulated, and to blame tax cuts when we know they didn't contribute ... you're just lying.

Posted by: pudge on September 19, 2011 09:46 AM
6. I prefer it when Bruce gets to post...he says the stupidest things, plus I view it as beneficial that he can spend his ample free time here posting, as opposed to doing something where he might actually make a difference. At least here, his liberal pschyo-babble doesn't actually accomplish anything. For me, reading his pretend intellectual crap, at least he portrays succinctly, how far off-base the fanatical left truly is.


Pretty please, let him post some more...

Posted by: steve on September 19, 2011 10:30 AM
7. steve, I welcome opposing views. I don't welcome dishonesty and abuse. The cons -- significantly and persistently lowering the quality of the discussion -- outweigh the positive. I understand your concerns, but the answer is No.

Posted by: pudge on September 19, 2011 11:02 AM
8. It would help if the GOP presidential candidates presented their plan to counter Obama's sham-wow plan and do it this week. I know that Romney has provided a 59 point plan, but he (as well as others) would be benefited if they distilled it into a message that resonates and will do a lot to effectively stem the demagoguery from Mr. Obama.

Posted by: KDS on September 19, 2011 11:37 AM
9. Obama Hates Jobs

Yes, indeed.
He hates PRIVATE SECTOR jobs.
He loves UNION jobs and GOVERNMENT jobs.

Michael Barone has an interesting piece on just that:

As President, Obama Acts as Shop Steward in Chief

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on September 19, 2011 12:11 PM
10. I agree with Borderland - I believe Obama is acting in good faith. He really believes the government will do a better job with the tax money than the private sector would. That's what liberals believe. Call it stupid if you will, but it isn't indicative of some hidden agenda: it is simply their world view.

Posted by: Just Right on September 19, 2011 01:27 PM
11. Good post, Pudge. Also, President Obama's calls for higher taxes on "the wealthy" rings hollow. Why didn't he raise taxes last fall when he could have before republicans took their seats as the new voted-in majority? So clearly, this call for tax increases is REALLY hollow. Although he certainly raised taxes on "the rich" for Obamacare. And no, throwing gasoline on the economic fire like that, Mr. O, is NOT a good economic strategy.

Posted by: Michele on September 19, 2011 01:36 PM
12. Our country is going to go to hell in a handbasket if we keep borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends. Federal taxes are at the lowest level since World War II, while federal spending is at the highest level ever.

We will have to bite the bullet, and bring the budget into balance. And none of the political forces in Washington has the guts to increase revenue and cut spending in the amounts necessary to do this.

Posted by: Richard Pope on September 19, 2011 02:01 PM
13. Dont worry about it after all Government Motors just gave $5000 bonuses to all its union employees. I'm sure they will give it back to the government to help pay off the 15 billion GM still owes us taxpayers.

Posted by: mike336 on September 19, 2011 02:11 PM
14. Dont worry about it after all Government Motors just gave $5000 bonuses to all its union employees. I'm sure they will give it back to the government to help pay off the 15 billion GM still owes us taxpayers.

Posted by: mike336 on September 19, 2011 02:12 PM
15. Oops double post and forgot the link. Sorry
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/business/general-motors-said-to-offer-bonuses-in-new-deal-with-workers.html?_r=1&hp

Posted by: mike336 on September 19, 2011 02:14 PM
16. TAKE ACTION: America's Job Creators Are About To Be Sucker Punched & You Have Until Wednesday To Comment
You need to act before Wednesday. At a time when the Obama Administration is clamoring to save or create jobs, his Department of Labor is about to sucker punch America's job creators with an unprecedented regulatory overreach--all to curry more favor with union bosses.

On Wednesday, the public comment period will be closing on a Department of Labor proposal that the majority of America knows nothing about and even fewer understand.

If enacted as drafted, the union cronies within the Department of Labor will require every private-sector employer and service provider (whether or not they ever talk directly to employees) to file financial statements with the Obama Labor Department if the service provider's services indirectly affect employees' choice to unionize or not.

READ THE REST!

Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on September 19, 2011 03:49 PM
17. "When Obama says his main goal is to create jobs, we know he's lying."

No, we know you have not looked at the data for jobs.

Posted by: Kettle on September 19, 2011 06:27 PM
18. Kettle: you are making no sense. I am pointing out the fact that Obama is HURTING job creation.

In the case of Boeing he is literally KILLING existing jobs for no reason other than that they are the wrong kind of jobs: nonunion.

In the case of the tax increase, he is trying to take money from people who create jobs in order to ... create jobs? It's lunacy on the face of it.

Posted by: pudge on September 19, 2011 06:33 PM
19. Richard Pope wrote:

Our country is going to go to hell in a handbasket if we keep borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar that the federal government spends. Federal taxes are at the lowest level since World War II, while federal spending is at the highest level ever.

We will have to bite the bullet, and bring the budget into balance. And none of the political forces in Washington has the guts to increase revenue and cut spending in the amounts necessary to do this.

Actually, Richard, increasing revenue is not required. In constant dollars, the Federal Government is receiving the same amount of money as it did at the end of the Clinton Administration - and we ran a small budget surplus at that time.

Spending, however, in constant dollars is up 50%.

The budgetary nightmare we have is 100% caused by excessive spending - not insufficient revenue.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 19, 2011 07:12 PM
20. Richard Pope: Federal taxes are at the lowest level since World War II

But here's the problem, Richard:

Our tax rates and deductions are essentially unchanged from when we had historically HIGH revenues just a few years ago, in 2007.

It's a proven fact that the current tax rates are not the cause of our decreased revenue. The recession and unemployment are the cause of the decrease in revenue. And increasing taxes will only make it harder to improve the economy.

I would say that Dan is slightly wrong: it's not 100% spending, it's about 75% spending and 25% monetary policy. But NONE of our current problem is due to low tax rates or certain deductions. Again: this is a proven fact, because -- again -- we have the same tax rates and deductions in 2007 with much higher revenues. It's very simple.

Posted by: pudge on September 19, 2011 07:39 PM
21. Pudge, Shanghai,
Can you explain, using simple, common sense logic, how raising taxes slightly on NET personal income over $1M is going to decrease revenues? Given that this represents under 1% of the population? I would maintain that it will increase revenue and economic activity. Any smart businessman will decide that it's better to invest and hire (both fully tax deductible activities) rather than pay the money in taxes? As for corporate c-grade execs, wall st types and celebrities (the only other crowd making this kind of dough), they can afford the slight hit to the savings.

Posted by: Proteus on September 19, 2011 08:29 PM
22. Shanghai,
Why don't you look at federal discretionary spending increase? Your 50% figure includes two wars after all, and a massive new homeland security bureaucracy.
Also don't forget we had about 28M added to the population, per the census, or about 9% population growth.

Posted by: Proteus on September 19, 2011 08:36 PM
23. Shanghai,
Why don't you look at federal discretionary spending increase? Your 50% figure includes two wars after all, and a massive new homeland security bureaucracy.
Also don't forget we had about 28M added to the population, per the census, or about 9% population growth.

Posted by: Proteus on September 19, 2011 08:36 PM
24. Proteus,

Why should we look at raising more revenue? Were we not spending enough back in 1997 and 1998? We have the same money - adjusted for inflation. We're spending way too much.

About population - how does that explain we're spending 50% more in constant dollars when population has increased 9%? Clearly spending has vastly outstripped revenues and inflation and population.

As far as the wars go - go ahead and take out the $100 billion annually spent on Iraq and Afghanistan - we still have a $1.4 trillion deficit.

It's spending that's the problem - not revenue. If we need more revenue, can you tell me why we need to spend so much more money per capita (50% more) than we spent in 1998, 1999, and 2000?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on September 19, 2011 09:00 PM
25. Proteus: Pudge, ... Can you explain, using simple, common sense logic, how raising taxes slightly on NET personal income over $1M is going to decrease revenues?

I never said anything about it decreasing revenues. I didn't even hint at it. I said the problem of low revenues is not caused by the current tax rates or deductions, which is an irrefutable fact. I think we probably would see small increases in revenue with a tax increase, though not as much as Obama wants us to think.


I would maintain that it will increase revenue and economic activity.

The former, maybe, in the very short term. The latter? Unreasonable. There is NO REASON to think that taking money out of the economy will improve the economy.


Any smart businessman will decide that it's better to invest and hire (both fully tax deductible activities) rather than pay the money in taxes?

Um. So YOU are arguing it MIGHT NOT increase revenues, even though you just said it would. You realize this, right? If the tax increase makes people work to avoid it, then that could actually result in static or even lower revenues, if the plan works. So you either have to admit that it won't redirect capital, or that it might not increase (and might even decrease) revenue.

But if your concern is a lack of economic activity, holding a gun to someone's head is the WORST way of going about doing it. It completely ignores market forces. It pushes money away from where it might serve the needs of the market the best, and instead into where it is simply the safest according to whatever the person holding the gun is saying.

An obvious example is ethanol. Ethanol wouldn't exist today if not for tax breaks and subsidies. And the rest of the economy clearly suffers for it.

If you want to get people to invest and hire then give them a stable market, with a stable currency, and only whatever regulation is necessary instead of merely desirable. This is how you get investment in labor and capital goods. It's a proven formula.

You don't give tax deductions or credits: that does work, but not as well, and it pushes the money into the wrong places, which gives us the booms and busts that lead to recessions. It props up useless companies like Solyndra instead of having people put money where it is most likely to do good for the economy.


As for corporate c-grade execs, wall st types and celebrities (the only other crowd making this kind of dough), they can afford the slight hit to the savings.

You don't know that. There's no way you possibly could.

And you don't mean it, either.

What you really mean is that you value tax revenues more than you value their free choice, and that you are willing to impose force to enforce your will on them. It has nothing to do with "afford" whatsoever. If I want to spend a million dollars on a lifetime supply of chocolate brownie mix in case there's a nuclear war, then I literally cannot afford to pay any taxes on that million dollars. You are making a value judgment about how those "execs, wall st types and celebrities" choose to spend their money, and are willing to use force against their choices, because you hate free choice and liberty. Literally.

Now as to spending, look: the Democrats first budget since taking control of Congress saw spending increase at a rate faster than any year since WWII. And that was ALL discretionary. And that's irrespective of the loss of revenue from the recession. And when Obama took office it got worse, with the stimulus. Please let's not pretend spending did not get completely out of control under the Democrats. It just makes you look stupid.

Posted by: pudge on September 19, 2011 09:48 PM
26. When Obama says his main goal is to create jobs, we know he's lying.

Just about everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. He also said you don't raise taxes in a recession, and he was lying, because now he wants to tax the rich in a recession. Even when taxing the rich will never raise as much revenue as if we had a fair tax across all citizens. He also said he would be a grand uniter. All he has done is pit us against each other, pick favorites, and cozy up with special privileges and loans and healthcare waivers for those who are aligned with him ideologically.

Lying is his pastime. And that's why his approval rating is at an all time low, and his likability went upside down for the first time. Americans have finally caught on that there was a lot of rhetoric and stagecraft to Obama 2008, and nothing else of any real substance.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 20, 2011 12:13 AM
27. Yesterday's speech by Obama was the most authentic speech he has given to date. He had more passion than I have seen and probably didn't even need to use the teleprompter. Granted, it was blindly partisan and reeked of class warfare (bad math) and was used to gin up the liberal progressive base.

It revealed the dark and clueless side of Mr. Obama, but it was authentic and that is a sample of the disaster awaiting if the misfortune of his reelection occurs.

Posted by: KDS on September 20, 2011 08:41 PM
28. BO was and still is unqualified to hold the top position. He is in way over his head and is definitely successful in his failures. He hates private business and no understanding of economics. He wants people to pay their fare share, ok, start taxing the 50% that don't pay taxes now.

Posted by: Harry on September 20, 2011 09:27 PM
29. You know, I wrote a long, rambling response to Harry, but perhaps I'll make it plain for him.

The bottom 50% don't pay any taxes, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO WEALTH AND ALMOST NO INCOME!

There. how about that. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO TAX. The bottom 50% make under $35K/year in income, and many make far less. You try raising a family on that.

This pretty much explains it all for you.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

But heck, everyone here agrees Reagan was a great president, right? Lets go back to the tax rates he signed into law (which were much higher than Obama is proposing on income over $1m)

Posted by: Proteus on September 22, 2011 06:38 PM
30. What is with the "we're out of money" talk? A few years ago, back when we were only $10trillion in debt, weren't we "out of money" then?

When Reagan left office..when we were $5trillion in debt (a huge amount compared to GDP at the time), we weren't "out of money" then?

Posted by: Proteus on September 22, 2011 08:06 PM
31. Proteus: The bottom 50% don't pay any taxes, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO WEALTH AND ALMOST NO INCOME!

So?

THIS IS A PROBLEM, when people who are not being taxed are TAKING from people who ARE.


But heck, everyone here agrees Reagan was a great president, right? Lets go back to the tax rates he signed into law (which were much higher than Obama is proposing on income over $1m)

You realize he had a Democratic Congress, and that conservatives wanted even lower rates, right?


What is with the "we're out of money" talk?

Facts?


A few years ago, back when we were only $10trillion in debt, weren't we "out of money" then?

Yes.


When Reagan left office..when we were $5trillion in debt (a huge amount compared to GDP at the time), we weren't "out of money" then?

Out of money? Yes, but it wasn't as bad. But the Democratic Congress spent way too much, and Reagan allowed it.

A huge amount compared to GDP? No. You're confused. The debt-to-GDP when Reagan left was just over 50 percent -- only a little more than it was when FDR took office, and a little less than when Ike left office -- which is really big, but managable. If Congress gives Obama everything he is asking for, we will get to over 100 percent of debt to GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Posted by: pudge on September 23, 2011 04:13 PM
32. While it is true about Obama hating private sector jobs, the media is out to say that House Republicans don't like jobs and are out to sabotage Obama to keep the economy in the dumper in the hopes that he is defeated next November.

When is the GOP going to start framing the debate ? If the progressives frame it first, it will be more of an uphill battle for GOP/conservatives on the road to Nov. 2012. I wish that just this once in POTUS election year that they stop being the stupid party !

Posted by: KDS on September 25, 2011 02:25 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?