From Senator Jim DeMint, some obvious points about Obama’s complete lack of understanding of the job market (emphasis mine):
“I spent most of m life in business,’ DeMint told Glor, “and I’m hearing what the president is talking about, which are temporary incentives like giving a company 5,000 (dollars) to hire someone. It cost a company about $65,000 a year to create a $40,000-a-year job. No company is gonna create a job for $5,000. If they were gonna hire the person anyway, they would certainly take it. But the president is not thinking like an American businessperson who has to look long-term, has to have some certainty. We need to know what that tax rate’s gonna be, what the cost of health insurance, what the cost of unemployment insurance. The way he’s talking is not like what I hear from the businesses around South Carolina or throughout the country. So he doesn’t seem to be on the same page with what it really takes to create jobs.”
Yes, indeed. Businesses will take the money if offered, and Obama then will count the job as created or saved, but the handout hasn’t created or saved a job in the real world. But when all you know is government, government is all you know.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“the cost of unemployment insurance”
You layoff too often and they get you, so you have to work with the assumption that you will only layoff as a last resort.
That’s overlooking one other small factor. What’s that employee going to do? Until there’s an uptick in customers and demand, why should any company hire new employees? Including those companies sitting on “record profits?” Jobs are not a social welfare program.
What about 787 BILLION in stimulus – could have just wrote a check for better than 60K to 12 million folks out of work.
And didn’t we just see a post about Soladyn going bankrupt after getting 500+ million for 3,000 employees? Under this program, those same 3k employees would have only cost US 15mil.
In the end, the Dems only answer is “mo-money”. And if it doesn’t work, then “mo-money II” followed by “mo-money-III”
DocWahala (is so thankful he is now working overseas)
I feel the same way when he talks about stimulus and construction jobs. In his world, ‘construction jobs’ means big government projects like building bridges. He has NO IDEA.
Here, in our communities, the ‘construction workers’ are the electricians, and plumbers, and carpenters, roofers, sheetrockers, painters, etc. who would be building houses, but have been crushed by Obama’s failing economy. Nothing he does is making them whole. They aren’t going to move to Milwaukee to build some damn bridge. They’re struggling. They’re out of work.
Some of them are giving up honest work and resorting to growing pot. Cops say one in three houses in Arcata, CA is now a growhouse. Tax free income. Protected by the ‘progressives.’ Welcome to the new world order.
Right. And many, many aren’t merely “workers”. These guys have their own local businesses that they built up for years, got licensed, jumped through hoops. Now they get to become temporary day laborers? On big temporary government projects being given out to campaign donors.
Shouldn’t the government give you at least enough money to pay that worker the minimum wage over a 40 hour week? Or do they expect the businessman to take the money out of his own pocket to hire a worker he probably doesn’t need (or he would have ALREADY hired him/her).
I’ll give you a case in point on gov’t stimulus programs. At the end of 2009, I retired. My wife and I sold our house and moved to another state where we bought another house. We qualified for a $6,500 “Existing Home Buyers Tax Credit.”
The thing about this that the nitwits in DC can’t understand is that the presence (or absence) of the tax credit had zero, zilch, nada, nein affect on my decision to buy the new house. It just put an extra bit of cash in my pocket.
Just as DeMint says, onetime payments like that have no affect on an employer’s decision to hire or not to hire. How can the folks in Washington be so stupid?
Tea Partiers: “Sons of Bitches” according to Obama Rally Speaker.
Obama is giving a Labor Day Speech in Detroit. The speaker before Obama (I believe AFL-CIO union bigwig Richard Trumpka, but I could be wrong) said that tea partiers were “sons off bitches”. Like my husband, I find it exceptionally interesting that POTUS is A-OK with this attack on fellow citizens on this Labor Day, as many of these wealth-generating Americans labor hard under the burdensome tax and regulatory atmosphere his administration has created.
It was Teamsters Jimmy Hoffa Jr. I just saw it on Real Clear Politics.
That is what scares me if Sarah Palin decides to run. These gangster thugs (aka Union leaders, Big Labor, etc.) will not hesistate to use violence, since they have exhausted all other Alinsky avenues, thrown everything else at her, and failed to take her out of the arena.
The others will suffer Alinsky tactics, just as Sarah has over the last 3 years. Because the left know she is the real deal; and, by making the “TEA Party” their “target,” she is the bulls-eye.
Nothing is beneath the left. Nothing.
In answer to your question, there are two options:
1) He is clueless.
2) He is doing all this on purpose, knowing it will create chaos, and eventually take down the US.
Personally, I believe it is #2.
“Stay the Course” might work if anybody knew what course Obama was on, but who really wants to “Stay the Course” ? Even Obama doesn’t like the current course.
The stimulus and other programs were funded through the accumulation of debt. As it stands, over 10% of our economy is virtual, and will collapse once debt subsidies are removed. Unfortunately, there is no indication that the real economy will compensate anytime soon. The problem is further exacerbated when American men, women, and children are displaced by over 10 million (and likely double that number) illegal aliens. It is particularly a problem for Americans with low knowledge and skill (including the young and inexperienced).
In any case, the market has been thoroughly distorted through government policies, and our economy has been further distorted through the fiscal policies of the federal reserve. There is simply too much uncertainty and too many regulations (which favor established large businesses) to warrant accepting the inherent risks present in entrepreneurship and businesses expansion.
DeMint is right. Economic enterprises (e.g., business) are not magical conceptions. Unless they are subsidized, they are firmly grounded in reality and within the constraints of the market.
Instead of purchasing votes through “redistributive change”, the government should be focused on enabling the conditions where our economy thrives. We need to reduce the size and scope of government, thereby reducing involuntary exploitation and the progressive corruption which follows.
One doesn’t learn about running a business at Harvard Law or Columbia or even on the South Side of Chicago.
Mostly what one learns in those venues is how to steal legally, how to hide the theft and who to steal it from.
A modification of my previous comment;
I should have said ‘what HE learned in those venues was..”
Apologies for my exuberance getting in the way of accuracy.
[…] doesn’t appear that she’s running. He also said some pretty obvious things, like, Obama doesn’t have a clue about the job market or economics in general. This, we already […]