Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

[Al Azar]

More and more working people are eligible for benefits today. If only they'd get a raise...

Are you willing to pay for those raises? Most Americans are not.

After all, if employers give employees an increase in pay, that money has to come from somewhere.

Yoohoo. From the trillions in cash sitting on the sidelines.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Yes, that's why the market rallied when the job numbers were disappointing which lead the Fed to soften on raising interest rates. Interest rates were more important than economic data, at least in the short run.

Unfortunately, it's only good for the market in the short run. Because of the time value of money, short term positive profits due to low debt rates dominate long term profitability numbers which are not great because companies are investing so little, and what they do invest is largely overseas away from the malignant Federal government here

Many companies were afraid to invest thanks to Commie Care. There are so many if's, but's and maybe's in the bill that nobody knew what to expect from the federal government.

Businesses like to plan well in advance before making any financial moves. You can't do that with uncertainties like Obama Care.

Another thing is all this talk from the left giving DumBama credit for any advances we made in our economy. They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).

Some households are saving hundreds of dollars a month in energy costs between gasoline and natural gas. This is a widespread savings that gave most everybody more residual income at the end of each month. People used that extra money to pay down other bills, invest, or otherwise spend in our economy.

Obamacare is a cost attached to Labor.........employment growth since the passage of ACA has been stronger than it was during any time between 2001 and 2009....

They fail to acknowledge that our numbers didn't start to really improve until after the cost of our fuel went down thanks to fracking which the Democrats fought (and are still fighting).


This is nonsense........Gas prices started falling at the end of 2014....

 

[IcebergSlim]

More and more working people are eligible for benefits today. If only they'd get a raise...

Are you willing to pay for those raises? Most Americans are not.

After all, if employers give employees an increase in pay, that money has to come from somewhere.

Do you want incomes to rise or don't you?

 

[Faun]

The economy was doing fine until the American people had a brain fart and elected Democrats.

Now the above shows a slice of right wing "intelligentsia".....(who knew that GWB was a democrat and job losses were "good" for the economy ?)

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record

Bush is the only president except for Herbert Hoover to leave office with fewer people working in the private sector than when he started.

And the right idiotically moans about Obama.

 

[nat4900]

Part of Romney's problem was his gloom and doom outlook of America at the time. I feel the GOP does better when Americans are confident and are energized by our keep the government out-of-face rhetoric.

Excellent point.....and a MAIN reason why the moronic slogan "make American Great Again" implies that our country is in the midst of constant "gloom and doom".....We're NOT that bad off.

 

[IcebergSlim]

And companies are not investing domestically because they cite lack of demand. Why is there lack of demand? American workers can't afford much discretionary spending on what they're paid.

These same companies are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash. It's just sitting on the sidelines earning next to nothing. If they stopped hoarding that cash and gave their employees raises, several benefits would follow:

1) Americans could afford to buy American,

2) rising wages will stimulate inflation,

3) getting inflation back up to normal levels will make long-term debt more attractive, putting upward pressure on interest rates.

We'll get back to normal quicker if Big Business would just get off the dime. Government can't always solve all our economic problems. Sometimes the private sector has to step up to the plate and do the right thing, too.

No, no no. If every American doubled their salary today, they would still look for ways to save money. Walmart wouldn't lose one customer.

There are more things to spend money on today than there were let's say 40 years ago. 40 years ago, you had a color television set, an antenna, and if you were lucky, an antenna on your roof to get better reception. You had a stereo, furniture and one car for the family.

Look at all the crap we spend our money on today: cell phones for the family, cable or satellite television, computers, internet, video games, pay-per-view or NetFlix, satellite radio, fast food three times a week or more, a car for every member of the family with a drivers license.

These are considered necessities today, so it's not a wonder why we don't have much left after paying all these bills.

1970 Cinema Screen Color TV
Price: $739.95 (w/remote), $639.95 (w/o remote)
Description New 25-inch diagonal screen (315 square inches). There's none bigger! Notice the Cinema-Screen shape. It's more like a movie screen. That's the way TV broadcasts originate. And our new color picture tube gives you over one hundred percent brighter pictures. It's more vivid, more alive than ever.


......


$119.99
List price $149.99
Save $30.00

ProScan PLDED3280A 32" 720p 60Hz D-LED HDTV

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If every American's salary doubled today, Big Auto couldn't make trucks and cars fast enough. Extrapolate that throughout the economy.

So what's the benefit of hoarding by Big Business?

The benefit? Growth.

You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.

Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.

You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?

Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.

Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.

 

[gipper]

Hey...did you hear? Obama managed to get all young blacks working. He moved mountains and got all those millions of young people good paying jobs. ...and all those boomers who dropped out of the work force, Obama got them jobs too. He even got jobs for the Muslims he brought in...and all those illegals he let in too.

The man is a miracle worker.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1970 Cinema Screen Color TV
Price: $739.95 (w/remote), $639.95 (w/o remote)
Description New 25-inch diagonal screen (315 square inches). There's none bigger! Notice the Cinema-Screen shape. It's more like a movie screen. That's the way TV broadcasts originate. And our new color picture tube gives you over one hundred percent brighter pictures. It's more vivid, more alive than ever.

Ha, I'm too spoiled with my 80" television. I would hardly be able to see that thing.

 

[nat4900]

After all, if employers give employees an increase in pay, that money has to come from somewhere.

True, and although below is not the perfect example, it should show some hint of "where" the money should come from...
(BTW, there is a bit of irony regarding where the article below generated....).

A recent article on Bloomberg.com last month illustrates the gap between high and low wage earners in the U.S. According to the article, in 2012, the average multiple of CEO compensation to that of rank-and-file workers was 204, up 20% since 2009. In other words, the average CEO made 204 times what the average worker earned in wages and benefits.

The most egregious example cited by Bloomberg.com was Ron Johnson, former CEO of J.C. Penney, which fired him April 8 after a 17-month stint during which he failed to turn around the company. Johnson, according to Bloomberg, received $53.3 million in compensation as reported in the company’s 2012 proxy — “1,795 times the average wage and benefits of a U.S. department store worker [$29,688] when he was hired.

Balancing the Pay Scale: 'Fair' vs. 'Unfair' - Knowledge@Wharton

 

[LeftofLeft]

Do Republicans remember how the country was when Obama became president. The economy, the stock market, the wars, employment and so on? The car industry, the steel industry, the rubber industry and so on?

Credit card companies? Health care?

Do they wish he had done nothing?

How would things be different?

How can Democrats be upset at Republicans for showing Obama the same level of respect and decorum that Democrats showed Bush, when Obama departs January 2017 from Office?

This is about performance, not self esteem.....

It is always about showing the outgoing President RESPECT whether you agree with him/her or not. Democrats and Liberals justify tossing aside any sense of respect in favor of their rhetoric. They smeared and jeered Bush as he was walking out of Office, accused Tea Party of violence (when none occurred) yet turned a blind eye to the murders and rapes coming out of Occupy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

True, and although below is not the perfect example, it should show some hint of "where" the money should come from...
(BTW, there is a bit of irony regarding where the article below generated....).

A recent article on Bloomberg.com last month illustrates the gap between high and low wage earners in the U.S. According to the article, in 2012, the average multiple of CEO compensation to that of rank-and-file workers was 204, up 20% since 2009. In other words, the average CEO made 204 times what the average worker earned in wages and benefits.

The most egregious example cited by Bloomberg.com was Ron Johnson, former CEO of J.C. Penney, which fired him April 8 after a 17-month stint during which he failed to turn around the company. Johnson, according to Bloomberg, received $53.3 million in compensation as reported in the company’s 2012 proxy — “1,795 times the average wage and benefits of a U.S. department store worker [$29,688] when he was hired.

So what are you implying here, that the CEO should give his money to the workers?

 

[LeftofLeft]

The best thing is that the economy would return to how it was was before Barney Queerboy, Tits Peloski, Dirty Harry and that jackass Obama took over Congress in 2007.

The economy was doing fine until the American people had a brain fart and elected Democrats.

Lets just hope they don't have another brain fart and elect this Crooked Hillary bitch in November. All we need is four more years of the disaster we got from Obama to seal the fate of this country to be a shithole.

Record foreclosures in 2006 is flush's idea of everything was just peachy before Democrats took over in 2007.

Record foreclosures were a result of Barney Frank and Co.

 

[nat4900]

So what are you implying here, that the CEO should give his money to the workers?

A simple question like yours merits a simple answer.......YES !!!

Just for fun, check out the economic disparities that led to the French Revolution.

 

[Al Azar]

If every American's salary doubled today, Big Auto couldn't make trucks and cars fast enough. Extrapolate that throughout the economy.

So what's the benefit of hoarding by Big Business?

The benefit? Growth.

You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.

Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.

You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?

Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.

Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.

Are you even reading my posts? These trillions of dollars are not invested. That's the problem. It's cash, earning little, serving no one.

Again, what is the benefit of this hoarding?

 

[kaz]

Redistribution of the money we earn for working more. I mean duh, Larry

Where do they find you Idiots?

How does the current federal tax burden compare to the average of the past 50 years?

If job creators are so disincentivized, why are we seeing higher rates of job growth than at any time during Supply Side Idiocy, Parte Deux?

Strawman. But I'll respond to your points for kicks.

1) What you said is a strawman because I was addressing a point that wanted to change "concentration of wealth at the top." That implies more government action to do that, it's not a statement about what's happening today. You have little reading comprehension and call me an "idiot," classic

2) As for the tax burden currently, it's about the same. However, Obamacare is looming large over the future and there's no telling what the increasingly belligerent Federal government will do on behalf of you and your greedy, wealth envying brethren who want to plunder them. Get used to them investing more and more overseas to run away from you.

That companies are moving to socialist countries should show you how far your greed has gotten out of hand. Yet it doesn't phase you at all, you just work on your plans to plunder them there

How is asking you to reconcile your hysteria with existing reality a "strawman"?

OK...so you weren't talking about anything that is actually happening......you are hyperventilating over something which you insist is being plotted....

It would be lovely if labor market dynamics organically changed the distribution of income and spread the wealth around to that segment of the population with a high MPC....perhaps it will.....it would certainly be my preference

If it DOESN'T, then the crude tool of distribution through federal tax policy may be necessary.......but what Supply Side steeped morons continually overlook is the benefit of increased demand which results from facilitating consumer spending....I'm of the belief that the reason the Clinton era saw better economic outcomes than the Reagan years was that the share of the "national income" going to labor was at the high end of the historical range...EVERYBODY did better.

Thanks for your concern about how I feel, gay boy, but I'm good. You suck at reading emotions for someone who wants to be a chick. Let's focus on the content, OK?

As for, "How is asking you to reconcile your hysteria with existing reality a "strawman"?"

Strawman

As for how it's a strawman, even though I pointed out it was a strawman, I answered your question in point number 2.

You don't actually read posts, do you?

I do........and it is entirely clear that you "reason" in the manner of a hysterical crack whore.....

That implies more government action to do that, it's not a statement about what's happening today

There's only Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow....You've ruled out today......and I am disinclined to believe that you are reminiscing.......

As for the tax burden currently, it's about the same. However, Obamacare is looming large over the future and there's no telling what the increasingly belligerent Federal government will do


Looks pretty "Not-Today-or-Yesterday" to me.......

Let me dumb this down for you, don't know if I can enough.

I responded to someone who wants to tax the rich more. That's future. Hence, your brilliant insight that this point wasn't about today is right, but what you didn't grasp is that was on purpose since the point I responded to wasn't about today. Here's a cookie

 

[IcebergSlim]

If every American's salary doubled today, Big Auto couldn't make trucks and cars fast enough. Extrapolate that throughout the economy.

So what's the benefit of hoarding by Big Business?

The benefit? Growth.

You see, it has little to do with how much a company has. It has to do more with growth of a company.

Let's say that you had a wealthy uncle that died and left you with 200K. You owe no bills. Your house is paid for, your cars are paid for, your kids college is paid for. So what do you do with that money? You invest it.

You don't want something too aggressive and risky, but you don't want anything too slow either. You are looking for a long term somewhat secure investment.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Before you answer, there's just one more thing: Company A has a gross income of 1.5 million dollars a year. Company B has a gross income of 120 million dollars a year. Does that factor change your mind at all?

Of course it doesn't. You could care less how much money a company has, all you as an investor cares about is growth.

Companies heavily rely on investors to make their business run. They want to attract as many investors as possible in most cases.

So your investment agent boils it down to two companies. Company A is a secure investment that's paying about 5.4% Company B too is a secure company that's been around a long time, but they are paying 3.1% Which company would you invest your money in?

Are you talking dividend yields?

Are you aware that they are only one part of the total return?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you want incomes to rise or don't you?

Yes I do, but not the wrong way.

The right way is supply and demand. When employers can't find employees, they increase wage offers. When there are not enough jobs to go around, wages decrease.

The problem today is that when employers can't find American workers, they hire foreigners and that throws off the supply and demand system. Either that or they outsource work or go to automation.

Want wages to go up, close off that border to illegals and legals alike. When our people start making more money, then we can talk about giving jobs to non-Americans.

 

[kaz]

It's like explaining economics to an eight year old, isn't it? You just can't dumb down the concepts enough

OK, Kaz....so give us the technical definition of "full employment" as you understand it....

Already did, multiple times. You really are lost

I'm multitasking........how about linking me to the post in this exchange where you do so....

Why would I waste 30 seconds when you either can't or don't read posts when you respond to them?

It would have taken you much less time to post the link......

The other possibility is that you were lying.....

So because you want me to give you the link in this thread to you that was to you and you didn't process and I won't go find it for you I'm "lying." Got it. Another cookie for you. Moron

 

[Al Azar]

The best thing is that the economy would return to how it was was before Barney Queerboy, Tits Peloski, Dirty Harry and that jackass Obama took over Congress in 2007.

The economy was doing fine until the American people had a brain fart and elected Democrats.

Lets just hope they don't have another brain fart and elect this Crooked Hillary bitch in November. All we need is four more years of the disaster we got from Obama to seal the fate of this country to be a shithole.

Record foreclosures in 2006 is flush's idea of everything was just peachy before Democrats took over in 2007.

Record foreclosures were a result of Barney Frank and Co.

One Democratic senator is at fault. The Republican majority in Congress and in the Oval Office are his victims.

Got it.