Unemployment lowest since 2008 (5 Viewers)

[SacramentoBob]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise.

CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

No one is going to fix this mess any time soon. NO ONE. You could lower taxes to zero and companies would still be scared to hire. Make huge cuts to the budget and you'll only see less consumer demand leading to more layoffs.

That's the American way. What if we had listened to folks that said we couldn't put a man on the moon? What if Edison threw in the towel after the 468th failure? What if we had surrendered to the English during the Revolutionary War?

I'm really tired of the Victicrats spitting out that it's OK because nothing can be done. Get out of the way then and let someone else try. Obama is a lawyer not a businessman and it shows. he runs the country about how I would expect a Law grad with no business skills whatsoever. He has zero business sense and looks really baffled by what is happening right now. he doesn't even come out and make a pep talk...half of the problem is people "BELIEVE WE ARE IN A RECESSION." he needs to talk to the country and encourage people to spend some money, those that have it, and also needs to make the folks who can hire others comfortable. it's not as hopeless as the Left would have you believe.

Try what?Nonsense about regulations and corporate tax rates. Even though corporations don't pay those rates anyway. Regulations are not getting in the way of corporations.

What is the GOP proposing?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate) The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

:fan:

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I think Sac Bob and Daywalker might be related

 

[Soonerman]

Regulations are not getting in the way of corporations.

President Obama disagrees with you. Read his statement today when he deferred the new EPA ozone regulations.

 

[DrJ]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate) The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

This man gets it.

 

[DrJ]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise.

CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

No one is going to fix this mess any time soon. NO ONE. You could lower taxes to zero and companies would still be scared to hire. Make huge cuts to the budget and you'll only see less consumer demand leading to more layoffs.

That's the American way. What if we had listened to folks that said we couldn't put a man on the moon? What if Edison threw in the towel after the 468th failure? What if we had surrendered to the English during the Revolutionary War?

I'm really tired of the Victicrats spitting out that it's OK because nothing can be done. Get out of the way then and let someone else try. Obama is a lawyer not a businessman and it shows. he runs the country about how I would expect a Law grad with no business skills whatsoever. He has zero business sense and looks really baffled by what is happening right now. he doesn't even come out and make a pep talk...half of the problem is people "BELIEVE WE ARE IN A RECESSION." he needs to talk to the country and encourage people to spend some money, those that have it, and also needs to make the folks who can hire others comfortable. it's not as hopeless as the Left would have you believe.

Try what?Nonsense about regulations and corporate tax rates. Even though corporations don't pay those rates anyway. Regulations are not getting in the way of corporations.

What is the GOP proposing?

Currently in the process of setting up a small business, and I have to say the process is pretty ridiculously complex and many sites suggest I hire a lawyer and accountant to muddle through the mess. That's in addition to the fact I'm having to shell out between $600-$750 or so in fees. Before I even try and land my first customer.If I get to the point where I'm going to hire someone - then it gets REALLY complex with all of the withholdings and all of that. Probably will have to hire an accountant at that point.

No question that government gets in the way of a lot of this stuff, and I'm not even in a regulated industry. Unless you count mostly worthless stuff like SOX compliance.

 

[Chadstroma]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate) The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

A huge problem with what they want to do is not just about re-inflating the bubble but their fiscal policy is also causing more problems- problems that increasingly have more immediate impact on the present day and become even harder for us to effectively tackle now and in the future. They gripe about a small caucus within a party that only holds the lower house but the majority party in the upper house and in the executive branch will not take any serious effort to control the out of control spending. The interesting thing about this is that we continue on this path, it not only insures much higher taxes in the future but it also insures the destruction or major eroding of the same entitlement programs that they refuse to touch. It is like the Democrats have a bike with a present tire and future tire. They are hard at work pumping away to inflate both- pump, pump, pump- breaking a sweat. But the present tire has a huge leak that they refuse to fix and all that air is going right out and the tire is still flat. Meanwhile, at the same time, every pump inflates that future tire and it is on the verge of bursting but they are too fixated on the present tire (or maybe too ignorant or apathetic) to even notice. In the end, they have a bike that has two really bad tires and is not going anywhere. The really crappy thing is that this is the bike that we all have to try to ride and hand over to our kids to ride down the road. It just is being made into something that is not road worthy by bad decisions.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate) The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

Yeah, this post gets pretty much everything wrong. Blaming gov't for the real estate bubble, suggesting that those of us who believe infrastructure investment at a time when labor and materials are cheap is "re-inflating the bubble", to actually rooting on high unemployment/slow economic growth under the guise of "taking our medicine. Yet many of the same folks who agree with Alex's post are the one's whining about high unemployment and slow economic growth and blaming Obama. It makes zero sense.

 

[IGKYA!!!]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise.

CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

No one is going to fix this mess any time soon. NO ONE. You could lower taxes to zero and companies would still be scared to hire. Make huge cuts to the budget and you'll only see less consumer demand leading to more layoffs.

That's the American way. What if we had listened to folks that said we couldn't put a man on the moon? What if Edison threw in the towel after the 468th failure? What if we had surrendered to the English during the Revolutionary War?

I'm really tired of the Victicrats spitting out that it's OK because nothing can be done. Get out of the way then and let someone else try. Obama is a lawyer not a businessman and it shows. he runs the country about how I would expect a Law grad with no business skills whatsoever. He has zero business sense and looks really baffled by what is happening right now. he doesn't even come out and make a pep talk...half of the problem is people "BELIEVE WE ARE IN A RECESSION." he needs to talk to the country and encourage people to spend some money, those that have it, and also needs to make the folks who can hire others comfortable. it's not as hopeless as the Left would have you believe.

Try what?Nonsense about regulations and corporate tax rates. Even though corporations don't pay those rates anyway. Regulations are not getting in the way of corporations.

What is the GOP proposing?

As someone in an industry that is absolutely FROZEN (booming but due to the fears of the EPA/Obama administration, but not hiring/spending) I know first hand that you are wrong!

 

[tommyGunZ]

As someone in an industry that is absolutely FROZEN (booming but due to the fears of the EPA/Obama administration, but not hiring/spending) I know first hand that you are wrong!

Just so we're clear - your company would increase profits by hiring additional employees and expanding, but are currently foregoing those profits due to fears of what Obama/EPA might do?

 

[Slapdash]

And for the economics PhD's teaching us poor idiots without any understanding of anything... interesting how you harp on the short term impact of government spending yet we have spent and spent in the short term with abysmal numbers to show for it. But what is much worse is how these short term policies that are suppose to save us (which have not) are also creating the conditions for long term economic malaise (at best). But hey, what would I know, I am the worse poster ever.

I was calling you an awful poster because you are a partisan hack who calls any opinion you disagree with political spin. I know you have issues with reading comprehension, but try and keep up.

 

[Daywalker]

Regulation strangling business = Tort reform is the main cost driver in healthcare.

Same nonsense.

 

[Boston]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise.

CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

No one is going to fix this mess any time soon. NO ONE. You could lower taxes to zero and companies would still be scared to hire. Make huge cuts to the budget and you'll only see less consumer demand leading to more layoffs.

That's the American way. What if we had listened to folks that said we couldn't put a man on the moon? What if Edison threw in the towel after the 468th failure? What if we had surrendered to the English during the Revolutionary War?

I'm really tired of the Victicrats spitting out that it's OK because nothing can be done. Get out of the way then and let someone else try. Obama is a lawyer not a businessman and it shows. he runs the country about how I would expect a Law grad with no business skills whatsoever. He has zero business sense and looks really baffled by what is happening right now. he doesn't even come out and make a pep talk...half of the problem is people "BELIEVE WE ARE IN A RECESSION." he needs to talk to the country and encourage people to spend some money, those that have it, and also needs to make the folks who can hire others comfortable. it's not as hopeless as the Left would have you believe.

Try what?Nonsense about regulations and corporate tax rates. Even though corporations don't pay those rates anyway. Regulations are not getting in the way of corporations.

What is the GOP proposing?

Currently in the process of setting up a small business, and I have to say the process is pretty ridiculously complex and many sites suggest I hire a lawyer and accountant to muddle through the mess. That's in addition to the fact I'm having to shell out between $600-$750 or so in fees. Before I even try and land my first customer.If I get to the point where I'm going to hire someone - then it gets REALLY complex with all of the withholdings and all of that. Probably will have to hire an accountant at that point.

No question that government gets in the way of a lot of this stuff, and I'm not even in a regulated industry. Unless you count mostly worthless stuff like SOX compliance.

Anyone who has "real-world" experience with small business fully understands how much of a detriment government is to them...whether it's time-consuming paperwork, waiting for a license, politically motivated inspectors, fees for nothing or incentives not to hire more people a small businessman gets minimal help from the public-sector...while it shouldn't be the wild-west and some oversight is needed until government gets out of the way the small businessman has a ball and chain on their leg...as far as right now (and I know the left will disagree) most of my customers are in a holding pattern until 2012 as they live in-fear of the unpredictability of the current administration and feel they are anti-business and don't have their best interests in mind...

 

[Quez]

All you unemployed fbgs hang in there. I did a 20 month stint but finally found something and have been back in the workforce for a year now. I have an hour commute and it's not perfect but at least I have a legit job again. After being let go 2x in a year I have constant paranoia that I could get axed anytime. Things aren't looking much better in FL and I'm pretty sure if I were to get laid off again i would be in the exact same situation I was in before I found this gig.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate) The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

Yeah, this post gets pretty much everything wrong. Blaming gov't for the real estate bubble, suggesting that those of us who believe infrastructure investment at a time when labor and materials are cheap is "re-inflating the bubble", to actually rooting on high unemployment/slow economic growth under the guise of "taking our medicine. Yet many of the same folks who agree with Alex's post are the one's whining about high unemployment and slow economic growth and blaming Obama. It makes zero sense.

TGunz: you know I'm a huge fan in general, which makes your response even more disappointing for a number of reasons: 1) tone, 2) lack of specificity, 3) incorrectness, 4) essentially mis-stating my point.To clarify:- I'm not cheering on unemployment or slow growth. Not even close. - I'm not 100% blaming govt for the real estate bubble (should have been more clear on that), but if you don't believe govt had a huge role, then you need to do more readingMy post that you quoted is closer to reality than anything written in this thread so far.

 

[Daywalker]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate)

The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.

We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

Yeah, this post gets pretty much everything wrong. Blaming gov't for the real estate bubble, suggesting that those of us who believe infrastructure investment at a time when labor and materials are cheap is "re-inflating the bubble", to actually rooting on high unemployment/slow economic growth under the guise of "taking our medicine. Yet many of the same folks who agree with Alex's post are the one's whining about high unemployment and slow economic growth and blaming Obama. It makes zero sense.

TGunz: you know I'm a huge fan in general, which makes your response even more disappointing for a number of reasons: 1) tone, 2) lack of specificity, 3) incorrectness, 4) essentially mis-stating my point.To clarify:

- I'm not cheering on unemployment or slow growth. Not even close.

- I'm not 100% blaming govt for the real estate bubble (should have been more clear on that), but if you don't believe govt had a huge role, then you need to do more reading

I agree. Those darn regulations, well in this case the lack of them, were a determining factor in the real estate bubble.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate)

The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.

We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

Yeah, this post gets pretty much everything wrong. Blaming gov't for the real estate bubble, suggesting that those of us who believe infrastructure investment at a time when labor and materials are cheap is "re-inflating the bubble", to actually rooting on high unemployment/slow economic growth under the guise of "taking our medicine. Yet many of the same folks who agree with Alex's post are the one's whining about high unemployment and slow economic growth and blaming Obama. It makes zero sense.

TGunz: you know I'm a huge fan in general, which makes your response even more disappointing for a number of reasons: 1) tone, 2) lack of specificity, 3) incorrectness, 4) essentially mis-stating my point.To clarify:

- I'm not cheering on unemployment or slow growth. Not even close.

- I'm not 100% blaming govt for the real estate bubble (should have been more clear on that), but if you don't believe govt had a huge role, then you need to do more reading

I agree. Those darn regulations, well in this case the lack of them, were a determining factor in the real estate bubble.

Go read up on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Come back with a report for us after you've learned something useful.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Interesting story about a Democratic politician:

How worried are smart politicians?

A well-known sociologist shares information about a prominent Democratic Senator that made him despair--and gave me hope.

For some reason, I'm on what is probably a very large e-mail list from Amitai Etzioni, the left-wing sociology professor at George Washington University. Maybe it's because we hit it off when we were both participants at a Hoover Institution conference on national service about 20 years ago. Maybe not. Anyway, I received the following this week. You'll see that he despaired; I had the opposite reaction.

Comments from Etzioni's email:

{Like many in Washington, I go to a fair number of meetings conducted under the Chatham House Rule, which allows one to discuss what was said in the meeting, but prevents one from naming the speaker or venue. At one of those meetings in a private home (somewhat like the scene in Gertrude Stein's salon in Midnight in Paris), a leading Democratic Senator spoke. He stated that the deficit was a greater threat to our nation than terrorism. That once one could say that unless we deal with the deficit, we shall burden our grandchildren; then--after things got worse--burden our children. Now, the senator raised his voice, we are screwed! He also allowed that entitlements must be cut. (Note that using the term entitlements rather than social safety nets, is by itself ideological). He did not mention jobs during his half-hour presentation. When asked about them after, he said that once the deficit reduction legislation is enacted, and the uncertainty surrounding the issue is removed, corporations that have large hordes of cash would hire people. I could not imagine what a Republican who is not a card-carrying Tea Party member would have said differently. For a rather different view, see "A Moral Assessment of the Attack on Social Safety Nets" and this exchange with Daniel Callahan and the political use of moral language.

The senator made two side notes of interest. He made it clear that [a] good part of the deficit reduction would be carried out with smokes and mirrors. For instance cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% means much less than meets the eye, because most corporations do not pay more than 18% as it is. (The tax "cut" is need so those meager revenue raisers that would be included could be offset by some reductions to make the change revenue neutral, as demanded by the conservatives.) He also admitted that Social Security was not adding to the deficit but argued that it nevertheless ought to be cut--because we are living longer.}

One note about the economics in the last paragraph. Even though the corporate tax cut wouldn't cut taxes by ten thirty-fifths for the reason he says, the fact that the marginal rate would be cut by ten thirty-fifths is huge.

His e-mail reminds me of another item Etzioni wrote in "My Turn" (in Newsweek) about 20+ years ago. He had taught a business ethics course at Harvard Business School and was upset that his views had so little traction with MBA students at Harvard. The vast majority of the students thought that advertising is good, that making lots of money is fine, etc. I wish I could find the whole "My Turn" article. I saved it but it was one of the many casualties in my 2007 fire.

 

[bear]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise.

CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

No one is going to fix this mess any time soon. NO ONE. You could lower taxes to zero and companies would still be scared to hire. Make huge cuts to the budget and you'll only see less consumer demand leading to more layoffs.

That's the American way. What if we had listened to folks that said we couldn't put a man on the moon? What if Edison threw in the towel after the 468th failure? What if we had surrendered to the English during the Revolutionary War?

I'm really tired of the Victicrats spitting out that it's OK because nothing can be done. Get out of the way then and let someone else try. Obama is a lawyer not a businessman and it shows. he runs the country about how I would expect a Law grad with no business skills whatsoever. He has zero business sense and looks really baffled by what is happening right now. he doesn't even come out and make a pep talk...half of the problem is people "BELIEVE WE ARE IN A RECESSION." he needs to talk to the country and encourage people to spend some money, those that have it, and also needs to make the folks who can hire others comfortable. it's not as hopeless as the Left would have you believe.

Try what?Nonsense about regulations and corporate tax rates. Even though corporations don't pay those rates anyway. Regulations are not getting in the way of corporations.

What is the GOP proposing?

Currently in the process of setting up a small business, and I have to say the process is pretty ridiculously complex and many sites suggest I hire a lawyer and accountant to muddle through the mess. That's in addition to the fact I'm having to shell out between $600-$750 or so in fees. Before I even try and land my first customer.If I get to the point where I'm going to hire someone - then it gets REALLY complex with all of the withholdings and all of that. Probably will have to hire an accountant at that point.

No question that government gets in the way of a lot of this stuff, and I'm not even in a regulated industry. Unless you count mostly worthless stuff like SOX compliance.

I currently have a small business (set it up myself as well as a couple others for various purposes) and have set up businesses for several of my clients. The process is extremely simple and cheap. Here in IL the process is fill out the form on the SOS website and send it to the SOS with $175 for your Articles of Incorporation. The Articles are back in about 7 business days. A child could do it. Of course, there are people who will charge a fee for this just like any other service. They cater to people who can't figure this stuff out by themselves (as simple as it is) or just don’t want to be bothered. As far as getting customers, you don't have to be incorporated to get them. Many businesses begin as sole proprietorships which have no startup fees. BTW, in my experience, most successful small businesses start working on getting clients/customers before they do anything else. If they can't get business nothing else matters.As for eventually hiring someone, most small businesses that bring people on do so initially as independent contractors. Very simple. If they do make them W-2 employees they can hire a payroll service who generally start at around $35 a month. Money well spent.

Finally, do you plan to go public? If not, how would SOX compliance affect you?

 

[DrJ]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise.

CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

No one is going to fix this mess any time soon. NO ONE. You could lower taxes to zero and companies would still be scared to hire. Make huge cuts to the budget and you'll only see less consumer demand leading to more layoffs.

That's the American way. What if we had listened to folks that said we couldn't put a man on the moon? What if Edison threw in the towel after the 468th failure? What if we had surrendered to the English during the Revolutionary War?

I'm really tired of the Victicrats spitting out that it's OK because nothing can be done. Get out of the way then and let someone else try. Obama is a lawyer not a businessman and it shows. he runs the country about how I would expect a Law grad with no business skills whatsoever. He has zero business sense and looks really baffled by what is happening right now. he doesn't even come out and make a pep talk...half of the problem is people "BELIEVE WE ARE IN A RECESSION." he needs to talk to the country and encourage people to spend some money, those that have it, and also needs to make the folks who can hire others comfortable. it's not as hopeless as the Left would have you believe.

Try what?Nonsense about regulations and corporate tax rates. Even though corporations don't pay those rates anyway. Regulations are not getting in the way of corporations.

What is the GOP proposing?

Currently in the process of setting up a small business, and I have to say the process is pretty ridiculously complex and many sites suggest I hire a lawyer and accountant to muddle through the mess. That's in addition to the fact I'm having to shell out between $600-$750 or so in fees. Before I even try and land my first customer.If I get to the point where I'm going to hire someone - then it gets REALLY complex with all of the withholdings and all of that. Probably will have to hire an accountant at that point.

No question that government gets in the way of a lot of this stuff, and I'm not even in a regulated industry. Unless you count mostly worthless stuff like SOX compliance.

I currently have a small business (set it up myself as well as a couple others for various purposes) and have set up businesses for several of my clients. The process is extremely simple and cheap. Here in IL the process is fill out the form on the SOS website and send it to the SOS with $175 for your Articles of Incorporation. The Articles are back in about 7 business days. A child could do it. Of course, there are people who will charge a fee for this just like any other service. They cater to people who can't figure this stuff out by themselves (as simple as it is) or just don’t want to be bothered. As far as getting customers, you don't have to be incorporated to get them. Many businesses begin as sole proprietorships which have no startup fees. BTW, in my experience, most successful small businesses start working on getting clients/customers before they do anything else. If they can't get business nothing else matters.As for eventually hiring someone, most small businesses that bring people on do so initially as independent contractors. Very simple. If they do make them W-2 employees they can hire a payroll service who generally start at around $35 a month. Money well spent.

Finally, do you plan to go public? If not, how would SOX compliance affect you?

Going with an single member LLC to limit any liability I have in the endeavor. The tax flexibility could be nice long term as well. Also in Illinois. Cost on that is $500, which is kind of high. Will also have to spend $250 to file an annual report each year, so it'll add up over time. Even the $175 fee on SOS is pretty out of line with what most states seem to charge for filing. The act of filling out the form is definitely a piece of cake and I did ultimately do all of this myself without a lawyer or accountant. But most places, even the Secretary of State's guide on the process recommend you get a lawyer and accountant for the thing. Have some other local license crap that I have to do as well. As a whole, it just seems like a lot of expense and more red tape than you'd really need.Maybe I'm going about this whole thing wrong. My assumption is that I'd need to be registered to do business before I could really work on getting clients. I'm going to become a Cisco Channel Partner and some other various things, and they aren't going to let me do that until I actually have a business either. I'm an FBG, so if I end up tossing a K or two out the window trying to get something going and it doesn't work out I'll live, and my wife still won't have to work. Either way, form and payment were mailed off last Friday so I'll have a $500 in the hole and counting LLC soon enough.

Good info on the hiring people stuff. I'm still a long way away from that point so I haven't looked into that part much. Was reading a little bit of stuff on hiring people traditionally and was thinking "wow, that part will really suck".

I'll be providing IT services. Won't really have to comply with SOX compliance myself, but it's one of the few regulations you do need to be aware of in this field.

Since you're in IL, maybe you can tell me what I need to do with them as far as taxes? Fed seems easy enough, I just file schedule C and SE on my personal income taxes - do I do a similar thing with IL?

 

[bear]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise.

CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

No one is going to fix this mess any time soon. NO ONE. You could lower taxes to zero and companies would still be scared to hire. Make huge cuts to the budget and you'll only see less consumer demand leading to more layoffs.

That's the American way. What if we had listened to folks that said we couldn't put a man on the moon? What if Edison threw in the towel after the 468th failure? What if we had surrendered to the English during the Revolutionary War?

I'm really tired of the Victicrats spitting out that it's OK because nothing can be done. Get out of the way then and let someone else try. Obama is a lawyer not a businessman and it shows. he runs the country about how I would expect a Law grad with no business skills whatsoever. He has zero business sense and looks really baffled by what is happening right now. he doesn't even come out and make a pep talk...half of the problem is people "BELIEVE WE ARE IN A RECESSION." he needs to talk to the country and encourage people to spend some money, those that have it, and also needs to make the folks who can hire others comfortable. it's not as hopeless as the Left would have you believe.

Try what?Nonsense about regulations and corporate tax rates. Even though corporations don't pay those rates anyway. Regulations are not getting in the way of corporations.

What is the GOP proposing?

Currently in the process of setting up a small business, and I have to say the process is pretty ridiculously complex and many sites suggest I hire a lawyer and accountant to muddle through the mess. That's in addition to the fact I'm having to shell out between $600-$750 or so in fees. Before I even try and land my first customer.If I get to the point where I'm going to hire someone - then it gets REALLY complex with all of the withholdings and all of that. Probably will have to hire an accountant at that point.

No question that government gets in the way of a lot of this stuff, and I'm not even in a regulated industry. Unless you count mostly worthless stuff like SOX compliance.

I currently have a small business (set it up myself as well as a couple others for various purposes) and have set up businesses for several of my clients. The process is extremely simple and cheap. Here in IL the process is fill out the form on the SOS website and send it to the SOS with $175 for your Articles of Incorporation. The Articles are back in about 7 business days. A child could do it. Of course, there are people who will charge a fee for this just like any other service. They cater to people who can't figure this stuff out by themselves (as simple as it is) or just don’t want to be bothered. As far as getting customers, you don't have to be incorporated to get them. Many businesses begin as sole proprietorships which have no startup fees. BTW, in my experience, most successful small businesses start working on getting clients/customers before they do anything else. If they can't get business nothing else matters.As for eventually hiring someone, most small businesses that bring people on do so initially as independent contractors. Very simple. If they do make them W-2 employees they can hire a payroll service who generally start at around $35 a month. Money well spent.

Finally, do you plan to go public? If not, how would SOX compliance affect you?

Going with an single member LLC to limit any liability I have in the endeavor. Also in Illinois. Cost on that is $500, which is kind of high. Even the $175 fee on SOS is pretty out of line with what most states seem to charge for filing. The act of filling out the form is definitely a piece of cake and I did ultimately do all of this myself without a lawyer or accountant. But most places, even the Secretary of State's guide on the process recommend you get a lawyer and accountant for the thing. Have some other local license crap that I have to do as well. As a whole, it just seems like a lot of expense and more red tape than you'd really need.Maybe I'm going about this whole thing wrong. My assumption is that I'd need to be registered to do business before I could really work on getting clients. I'm going to become a Cisco Channel Partner and some other various things, and they aren't going to let me do that until I actually have a business either. I'm an FBG, so if I end up tossing a K or two out the window trying to get something going and it doesn't work out I'll live, and my wife still won't have to work.

Good info on the hiring people stuff. I'm still a long way away from that point so I haven't looked into that part much. Was reading a little bit of stuff on hiring people traditionally and was thinking "wow, that part will really suck".

I'll be providing IT services. Won't really have to comply with SOX compliance myself, but it's one of the few regulations you do need to be aware of in this field.

Since you're in IL, maybe you can tell me what I need to do with them as far as taxes? Fed seems easy enough, I just file schedule C and SE on my personal income taxes - do I do a similar thing with IL?

Setting up the business as an LLC is a very good idea. It is more expensive but it rids you of the burden of needing to have Board of Directors meetings, keeping minutes for those meetings and some other stuff. Setting up your business as a corporation technically necessitates doing that stuff to avoid potential lawsuits being able to "pierce the corporate veil". I have a client (very money conscience) who scoured the country for the lowest LLC rates. He ended up setting up his business out east I believe. Google should help with this or I can email him next week for the info. I believe if you go this route you will need to find a registered agent in that state. CCH may be an option but no doubt there are options for this.As for your taxes, under no circumstances do you want to file a Sch C or SE. If you are serious about this business, I would spend a little time this weekend researching other states LLC prices, make sure the business name is available there and get it done ASAP. Once you get your Articles of Organization back you will need to do 2 things. 1) Request the IRS to treat your LLC as a corporation for tax purposes. 2) Once this election is granted you will need to request the IRS to treat your corporation as a "Sub S" corporation for tax purposes. If you do not make these elections all of your business income is subject to self employment taxes (SS & Medicare less some adjustments) up to $106,800 of income for 2011. That is to absolutely be avoided. For people like us the Sub S election is very valuable. Pay yourself a "reasonable salary" (which like any other salary is subject to SS & Medicare taxes as well as fed & state taxes of course). The rest of the business income is taxed as a distribution not subject to SS & Medicare tax. As an aside, thank Olympia Snowe for this because she withheld her vote on a tax bill last year that would have eliminated these tax benefits. When it became clear that she would not budge that provision was removed. The loss of Sub S tax benefits would have been a disaster for small businesses like ours so a toast to Ms Snowe on this holiday weekend.

Regarding IL business taxes, IL imposes what it calls a "replacement tax" on corporations. This appears to be 2.5 % for 2011. Without making the Sub S election all of your IL income would be taxed at the 5% personal tax rate. With the Sub S election a portion of the business income can be taxed at 1/2 that rate. A good deal there also.

 

[DrJ]

Anyone that thinks we are on the right path or have been on the right path the last 2-3 years is a snake oil salesman. Obama met with Fortune 500 CEOs last year and they said point blank that they were uncomfortable with the policies in place and they were not optimistic that things would get better without some assurances that better rules would be in place. Obama is stubborn...he continues to do what he wants and that's fine but his arrogance is going to be his demise.

CEOs told him they wanted a more stable environment, Obama did not follow through and now we are here. I'm not blaming Obama for the crisis, he inherited a mess, but that can't be the 1st talking point every time. Every President inherits whatever is left behind. You can't blame Obama for the creation of the mess but you can judge him on what he has done since then and for a lot of people it doesn't sit well but the folks that are going to vote for him in the next election are spinning the current recession like Obama is making headway and he isn't.

No one is going to fix this mess any time soon. NO ONE. You could lower taxes to zero and companies would still be scared to hire. Make huge cuts to the budget and you'll only see less consumer demand leading to more layoffs.

That's the American way. What if we had listened to folks that said we couldn't put a man on the moon? What if Edison threw in the towel after the 468th failure? What if we had surrendered to the English during the Revolutionary War?

I'm really tired of the Victicrats spitting out that it's OK because nothing can be done. Get out of the way then and let someone else try. Obama is a lawyer not a businessman and it shows. he runs the country about how I would expect a Law grad with no business skills whatsoever. He has zero business sense and looks really baffled by what is happening right now. he doesn't even come out and make a pep talk...half of the problem is people "BELIEVE WE ARE IN A RECESSION." he needs to talk to the country and encourage people to spend some money, those that have it, and also needs to make the folks who can hire others comfortable. it's not as hopeless as the Left would have you believe.

Try what?Nonsense about regulations and corporate tax rates. Even though corporations don't pay those rates anyway. Regulations are not getting in the way of corporations.

What is the GOP proposing?

Currently in the process of setting up a small business, and I have to say the process is pretty ridiculously complex and many sites suggest I hire a lawyer and accountant to muddle through the mess. That's in addition to the fact I'm having to shell out between $600-$750 or so in fees. Before I even try and land my first customer.If I get to the point where I'm going to hire someone - then it gets REALLY complex with all of the withholdings and all of that. Probably will have to hire an accountant at that point.

No question that government gets in the way of a lot of this stuff, and I'm not even in a regulated industry. Unless you count mostly worthless stuff like SOX compliance.

I currently have a small business (set it up myself as well as a couple others for various purposes) and have set up businesses for several of my clients. The process is extremely simple and cheap. Here in IL the process is fill out the form on the SOS website and send it to the SOS with $175 for your Articles of Incorporation. The Articles are back in about 7 business days. A child could do it. Of course, there are people who will charge a fee for this just like any other service. They cater to people who can't figure this stuff out by themselves (as simple as it is) or just don’t want to be bothered. As far as getting customers, you don't have to be incorporated to get them. Many businesses begin as sole proprietorships which have no startup fees. BTW, in my experience, most successful small businesses start working on getting clients/customers before they do anything else. If they can't get business nothing else matters.As for eventually hiring someone, most small businesses that bring people on do so initially as independent contractors. Very simple. If they do make them W-2 employees they can hire a payroll service who generally start at around $35 a month. Money well spent.

Finally, do you plan to go public? If not, how would SOX compliance affect you?

Going with an single member LLC to limit any liability I have in the endeavor. Also in Illinois. Cost on that is $500, which is kind of high. Even the $175 fee on SOS is pretty out of line with what most states seem to charge for filing. The act of filling out the form is definitely a piece of cake and I did ultimately do all of this myself without a lawyer or accountant. But most places, even the Secretary of State's guide on the process recommend you get a lawyer and accountant for the thing. Have some other local license crap that I have to do as well. As a whole, it just seems like a lot of expense and more red tape than you'd really need.Maybe I'm going about this whole thing wrong. My assumption is that I'd need to be registered to do business before I could really work on getting clients. I'm going to become a Cisco Channel Partner and some other various things, and they aren't going to let me do that until I actually have a business either. I'm an FBG, so if I end up tossing a K or two out the window trying to get something going and it doesn't work out I'll live, and my wife still won't have to work.

Good info on the hiring people stuff. I'm still a long way away from that point so I haven't looked into that part much. Was reading a little bit of stuff on hiring people traditionally and was thinking "wow, that part will really suck".

I'll be providing IT services. Won't really have to comply with SOX compliance myself, but it's one of the few regulations you do need to be aware of in this field.

Since you're in IL, maybe you can tell me what I need to do with them as far as taxes? Fed seems easy enough, I just file schedule C and SE on my personal income taxes - do I do a similar thing with IL?

Setting up the business as an LLC is a very good idea. It is more expensive but it rids you of the burden of needing to have Board of Directors meetings, keeping minutes for those meetings and some other stuff. Setting up your business as a corporation technically necessitates doing that stuff to avoid potential lawsuits being able to "pierce the corporate veil". I have a client (very money conscience) who scoured the country for the lowest LLC rates. He ended up setting up his business out east I believe. Google should help with this or I can email him next week for the info. I believe if you go this route you will need to find a registered agent in that state. CCH may be an option but no doubt there are options for this.As for your taxes, under no circumstances do you want to file a Sch C or SE. If you are serious about this business, I would spend a little time this weekend researching other states LLC prices, make sure the business name is available there and get it done ASAP. Once you get your Articles of Organization back you will need to do 2 things. 1) Request the IRS to treat your LLC as a corporation for tax purposes. 2) Once this election is granted you will need to request the IRS to treat your corporation as a "Sub S" corporation for tax purposes. If you do not make these elections all of your business income is subject to self employment taxes (SS & Medicare less some adjustments) up to $106,800 of income for 2011. That is to absolutely be avoided. For people like us the Sub S election is very valuable. Pay yourself a "reasonable salary" (which like any other salary is subject to SS & Medicare taxes as well as fed & state taxes of course). The rest of the business income is taxed as a distribution not subject to SS & Medicare tax. As an aside, thank Olympia Snowe for this because she withheld her vote on a tax bill last year that would have eliminated these tax benefits. When it became clear that she would not budge that provision was removed. The loss of Sub S tax benefits would have been a disaster for small businesses like ours so a toast to Ms Snowe on this holiday weekend.

Regarding IL business taxes, IL imposes what it calls a "replacement tax" on corporations. This appears to be 2.5 % for 2011. Without making the Sub S election all of your IL income would be taxed at the 5% personal tax rate. With the Sub S election a portion of the business income can be taxed at 1/2 that rate. A good deal there also.

Unforunately I already sent in the check/paperwork to Illinois - they got in Monday so I'm guessing it won't be long before the process is complete. I'm kind of new to this, so I figured I needed to use my home address. At the start, I'm planning to keep my current job and run this as a side gig. I actually have a ton of flexibility at my current job, so I think it's something I can pull off until I get things rolling. The employment tax isn't too big of a concern at the start due to that, because I'll be paying all of my SS taxes at that job. Medicare is a couple percent, so I can live with that to make things easy.

My understanding is that I can change the way I file with the IRS whenever I want - it's like checking a box practically. So I can use it as a pass through at the start, and then treat it as an S-Corp when I'm ready to quit my job. If not, maybe I should reevaluate that.

 

[DrJ]

Also, if I did go somewhere else, I'd have to register with Illinois as a foreign LLC to do business here. That's $100, and I think it's annual. I'm willing to shell out a couple extra bucks to make things easy, I guess.

 

[FavreCo]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate)

The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.

We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

Yeah, this post gets pretty much everything wrong. Blaming gov't for the real estate bubble, suggesting that those of us who believe infrastructure investment at a time when labor and materials are cheap is "re-inflating the bubble", to actually rooting on high unemployment/slow economic growth under the guise of "taking our medicine. Yet many of the same folks who agree with Alex's post are the one's whining about high unemployment and slow economic growth and blaming Obama. It makes zero sense.

Talk about a post that makes zero sense. You hatched it here. Alex K. is spot on. Tech was fizzling and greenspan wasn't about to go out on a low so he created the real estate bubble. This gave him enough time to make it appear that he was exiting at a high when it was just a huge bubble. What fed chief tells people that they should change out their fixed mortgages for ARM's? (Those ARM's mutated into creative ARM's.) One that wants to go out before the bubble popped.In a speech in February 2004,[58] Greenspan suggested that more homeowners should consider taking out Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs) where the interest rate adjusts itself to the current interest in the market.[59] The fed own funds rate was at a then all-time-low of 1%. A few months after his recommendation, Greenspan began raising interest rates, in a series of rate hikes that would bring the funds rate to 5.25% about two years later.[60] A triggering factor in the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis is believed to be the many subprime ARMs that reset at much higher interest rates than what the borrower paid during the first few years of the mortgage.

This POS was in office until the end of 2006. This POS soon after said that real estate was a bubble. Was it, hell yeah but if he was still in office he would have never said that. He would have made some speech that no one on this planet could decipher.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

From a guy named John Mauldin (a guy who, if you claim to be interested in economics or finance, you should already be reading):

We are clearly not coming out of recession like we normally do. That is because what we just experienced was not a normal “business-cycle” recession, but a deleveraging/balance-sheet/debt-crisis recession. And the latter simply take at least 5-6 years to work through, after a country begins to deal with the problem, which we have not.To repeat, even if somehow a Republican appeared in the White House tomorrow, there is no magic he (or she!) could bring with him/her to fix the unemployment problem. There are just some things the private sector will have to do for itself, and the sooner the government stops getting in the way, the sooner will get things fixed. But it will take a long time, no matter what. That is just the way things are.

 

[LHUCKS]

From a guy named John Mauldin (a guy who, if you claim to be interested in economics or finance, you should already be reading):

We are clearly not coming out of recession like we normally do. That is because what we just experienced was not a normal “business-cycle” recession, but a deleveraging/balance-sheet/debt-crisis recession. And the latter simply take at least 5-6 years to work through, after a country begins to deal with the problem, which we have not.To repeat, even if somehow a Republican appeared in the White House tomorrow, there is no magic he (or she!) could bring with him/her to fix the unemployment problem. There are just some things the private sector will have to do for itself, and the sooner the government stops getting in the way, the sooner will get things fixed. But it will take a long time, no matter what. That is just the way things are.

Mauldin knows more about economics than this entire forum combined.

 

[LHUCKS]

Anybody else watch Meet the Press this morning?

The topic was of course "The Economy" and the Liberals at the table came off as buffoons IMHO.

 

[cubd8]

Anybody else watch Meet the Press this morning?The topic was of course "The Economy" and the Liberals at the table came off as buffoons IMHO.

I normally watch, but missed the show today.Why did they come off like that - were they back to blaming Bush and the Tea Party and arguing that the stimulus was a success?

 

[LHUCKS]

Anybody else watch Meet the Press this morning?The topic was of course "The Economy" and the Liberals at the table came off as buffoons IMHO.

I normally watch, but missed the show today.Why did they come off like that - were they back to blaming Bush and the Tea Party and arguing that the stimulus was a success?

The African American Lady went on tangents about minority unemployment rates among other tangents...everybody else at the table had something insightful to say about the problem and potential solutions.Her basic premise was that govt. basically has to spend money(we don't have) on creating jobs to fix the employment problem.

 

[cubd8]

Anybody else watch Meet the Press this morning?The topic was of course "The Economy" and the Liberals at the table came off as buffoons IMHO.

I normally watch, but missed the show today.Why did they come off like that - were they back to blaming Bush and the Tea Party and arguing that the stimulus was a success?

The African American Lady went on tangents about minority unemployment rates among other tangents...everybody else at the table had something insightful to say about the problem and potential solutions.Her basic premise was that govt. basically has to spend money(we don't have) on creating jobs to fix the employment problem.

That's the basic progressive position. We have to spend more money to create economic activity and spur the economy on through governement intervention. As you mentioned, there is no money to do this, and I'm not even sure Obama could get full Democratic support on this idea with 2012 right around the corner.

 

[Daywalker]

Anybody else watch Meet the Press this morning?The topic was of course "The Economy" and the Liberals at the table came off as buffoons IMHO.

Maxine Waters is a buffoon. But Day and Freidman were superb. The scarf-dude is always good too.

 

[ericttspikes]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate) The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

Yeah, this post gets pretty much everything wrong. Blaming gov't for the real estate bubble, suggesting that those of us who believe infrastructure investment at a time when labor and materials are cheap is "re-inflating the bubble", to actually rooting on high unemployment/slow economic growth under the guise of "taking our medicine. Yet many of the same folks who agree with Alex's post are the one's whining about high unemployment and slow economic growth and blaming Obama. It makes zero sense.

It makes perfect sense. The right is attacking the deficit at the expense of jobs and want to blame Obama for the unemployment #'s.What makes zero sense to me, is that Obama is the gift that keeps giving for the right. He's a progressive sell-out and has supported a bunch of really crappy right wing ideas from extending tax breaks, rolling back environmental regulations, not supporting unions, throwing more $$$ at wars we can't afford, yet they keep pounding on the guy when the ideas they support don't work. I have no idea what Obama stands for, but he certainly isn't championing many liberal causes. He has to be on an island to himself these days. He may go down as the most disliked president ever; the left gave up on him and the right thinks he's a commie. I don't even think his dog likes him.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Anybody else watch Meet the Press this morning?The topic was of course "The Economy" and the Liberals at the table came off as buffoons IMHO.

I normally watch, but missed the show today.Why did they come off like that - were they back to blaming Bush and the Tea Party and arguing that the stimulus was a success?

The African American Lady went on tangents about minority unemployment rates among other tangents...everybody else at the table had something insightful to say about the problem and potential solutions.Her basic premise was that govt. basically has to spend money(we don't have) on creating jobs to fix the employment problem.

That's the basic progressive position. We have to spend more money to create economic activity and spur the economy on through governement intervention. As you mentioned, there is no money to do this, and I'm not even sure Obama could get full Democratic support on this idea with 2012 right around the corner.

The basic progressive position is stupid. We were massively leveraged collectively (govt, private sector, households) and now it's time to de-lever. Until we do that, nothing will stabilize. Liberals want us to avoid the pain...and so do "conservative" politicians....which is exactly why we're still in this predicament a 10+ years after the original bubble burst.

 

[Andrew74]

From a guy named John Mauldin (a guy who, if you claim to be interested in economics or finance, you should already be reading):

We are clearly not coming out of recession like we normally do. That is because what we just experienced was not a normal “business-cycle” recession, but a deleveraging/balance-sheet/debt-crisis recession. And the latter simply take at least 5-6 years to work through, after a country begins to deal with the problem, which we have not.To repeat, even if somehow a Republican appeared in the White House tomorrow, there is no magic he (or she!) could bring with him/her to fix the unemployment problem. There are just some things the private sector will have to do for itself, and the sooner the government stops getting in the way, the sooner will get things fixed. But it will take a long time, no matter what. That is just the way things are.

It is unfortunate, but it is the way it is. We are at the end of our debt supercycle - everyone is over-levered and can't reinflate. We just have to grit our teeth and ride this out.

 

[bueno]

SD, those articles basically just say that the Fed has already done what Japan should have. I agree that it helped slow the fall, but it certainly hasn't put us back on track. We're already doing huge amounts of QE, and it's not having the demand effect they talk about. IIRC, most economists agree that QE gets less effective each time you have to use it.

The part I disagree with is "do whatever is necessary to hit that target". There are negative impacts of many of these policy decisions as well- we can't totally ignore those.

I agree there are many fiscal things we can do, but I have very little faith that we will do them. We blew it with the stimulus, so I don't blame people for being against another one, even though it seems necessary.

I think the key difference between QE and their recommendations is the open-ended nature of the commitments they advocate. Having a limited value on these purchases makes it much harder to shape expectations and does not insure the proper liquidity is provided if it beyond the number. Additionally, it still keeps the too low implicit core inflation rate ceiling of 2% the Fed has which will stall the economy every time it starts to get moving.QE's intent has been to prevent outright deflation and on that measure it has been a success. They have not been trying to return nominal spending to trend so I don't think that is the metric to judge the program on. Frankly, they make it quite clear that they will not accept the inflation needed to do that. That strikes me as exactly the same mistake that happened in those two prior situations. I do agree that each time it will be less effective mainly because the political pressure will force it to come later and in smaller amounts than it is needed.

Of course there are downside risks to doing whatever it takes to hit the goal. Over aggressive policy could cause a price-wage spiral that is difficult to contain. However, I think it is very wrong to be concerned about then when inflation is currently so low and has been so low signifying that money is now too tight. I am not a fan of making the problems we have worse while worrying about problems that there is no evidence are close to occurring. Wages are stagnant and market inflation expectations are as low as they have ever been. The Fed has a ton of credibility with the market as an inflation fighter and I am confident that they would rein inflation in before it got out of control. Hell, they are so concerned about inflation that they are constantly sabotaging any effort to escape the largest deflationary bust this country has seen in 80 years. That some credibility!

What happened during Carters administration?

An inflationary burst that was later treated by Volcker. In the 30 years since, the Fed has moved to stamp out inflation any time it began to show up in wages. Doing this has gained them this credibility I speak of. Any look at long term bond rates or inflation rates will make clear that a massive shift in policy occurred since then. .

How do you see wage inflation control affecting the increasing gap between rich and poor?

 

[bueno]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate) The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

Yeah, this post gets pretty much everything wrong. Blaming gov't for the real estate bubble, suggesting that those of us who believe infrastructure investment at a time when labor and materials are cheap is "re-inflating the bubble", to actually rooting on high unemployment/slow economic growth under the guise of "taking our medicine. Yet many of the same folks who agree with Alex's post are the one's whining about high unemployment and slow economic growth and blaming Obama. It makes zero sense.

It makes perfect sense. The right is attacking the deficit at the expense of jobs and want to blame Obama for the unemployment #'s.What makes zero sense to me, is that Obama is the gift that keeps giving for the right. He's a progressive sell-out and has supported a bunch of really crappy right wing ideas from extending tax breaks, rolling back environmental regulations, not supporting unions, throwing more $$ at wars we can't afford, yet they keep pounding on the guy when the ideas they support don't work. I have no idea what Obama stands for, but he certainly isn't championing many liberal causes. He has to be on an island to himself these days. He may go down as the most disliked president ever; the left gave up on him and the right thinks he's a commie. I don't even think his dog likes him.

He should have bought a pound puppy like he promised!

 

[LHUCKS]

Anybody else watch Meet the Press this morning?The topic was of course "The Economy" and the Liberals at the table came off as buffoons IMHO.

Maxine Waters is a buffoon. But Day and Freidman were superb. The scarf-dude is always good too.

What's ironic is that those that are #####ing about not having a job don't take the time to watch quality programming like this to educate themselves on the issues at hand.

 

[Slapdash]

SD, those articles basically just say that the Fed has already done what Japan should have. I agree that it helped slow the fall, but it certainly hasn't put us back on track. We're already doing huge amounts of QE, and it's not having the demand effect they talk about. IIRC, most economists agree that QE gets less effective each time you have to use it.

The part I disagree with is "do whatever is necessary to hit that target". There are negative impacts of many of these policy decisions as well- we can't totally ignore those.

I agree there are many fiscal things we can do, but I have very little faith that we will do them. We blew it with the stimulus, so I don't blame people for being against another one, even though it seems necessary.

I think the key difference between QE and their recommendations is the open-ended nature of the commitments they advocate. Having a limited value on these purchases makes it much harder to shape expectations and does not insure the proper liquidity is provided if it beyond the number. Additionally, it still keeps the too low implicit core inflation rate ceiling of 2% the Fed has which will stall the economy every time it starts to get moving.QE's intent has been to prevent outright deflation and on that measure it has been a success. They have not been trying to return nominal spending to trend so I don't think that is the metric to judge the program on. Frankly, they make it quite clear that they will not accept the inflation needed to do that. That strikes me as exactly the same mistake that happened in those two prior situations. I do agree that each time it will be less effective mainly because the political pressure will force it to come later and in smaller amounts than it is needed.

Of course there are downside risks to doing whatever it takes to hit the goal. Over aggressive policy could cause a price-wage spiral that is difficult to contain. However, I think it is very wrong to be concerned about then when inflation is currently so low and has been so low signifying that money is now too tight. I am not a fan of making the problems we have worse while worrying about problems that there is no evidence are close to occurring. Wages are stagnant and market inflation expectations are as low as they have ever been. The Fed has a ton of credibility with the market as an inflation fighter and I am confident that they would rein inflation in before it got out of control. Hell, they are so concerned about inflation that they are constantly sabotaging any effort to escape the largest deflationary bust this country has seen in 80 years. That some credibility!

What happened during Carters administration?

An inflationary burst that was later treated by Volcker. In the 30 years since, the Fed has moved to stamp out inflation any time it began to show up in wages. Doing this has gained them this credibility I speak of. Any look at long term bond rates or inflation rates will make clear that a massive shift in policy occurred since then. .

How do you see wage inflation control affecting the increasing gap between rich and poor?

I think when money is too tight in general it will tend to increase this gap with slower wage growth and higher unemployment.

 

[SofaKings]

Anybody else watch Meet the Press this morning?The topic was of course "The Economy" and the Liberals at the table came off as buffoons IMHO.

Maxine Waters is a buffoon. But Day and Freidman were superb. The scarf-dude is always good too.

Maxine Waters was on Meet the Press regarding the economy??? The apocalypse is nigh.

 

[StrikeS2k]

 

[Sam Quentin]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate) The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

What post-1999 policies led to the Real Estate bubble?

 

[Chadstroma]

Anybody else watch Meet the Press this morning?The topic was of course "The Economy" and the Liberals at the table came off as buffoons IMHO.

Maxine Waters is a buffoon. But Day and Freidman were superb. The scarf-dude is always good too.

Maxine Waters was on Meet the Press regarding the economy??? The apocalypse is nigh.

Obviously they had no intention of having a thoughtful conversation regarding the economy if they asked her to be on.

 

[bueno]

SD, those articles basically just say that the Fed has already done what Japan should have. I agree that it helped slow the fall, but it certainly hasn't put us back on track. We're already doing huge amounts of QE, and it's not having the demand effect they talk about. IIRC, most economists agree that QE gets less effective each time you have to use it.

The part I disagree with is "do whatever is necessary to hit that target". There are negative impacts of many of these policy decisions as well- we can't totally ignore those.

I agree there are many fiscal things we can do, but I have very little faith that we will do them. We blew it with the stimulus, so I don't blame people for being against another one, even though it seems necessary.

I think the key difference between QE and their recommendations is the open-ended nature of the commitments they advocate. Having a limited value on these purchases makes it much harder to shape expectations and does not insure the proper liquidity is provided if it beyond the number. Additionally, it still keeps the too low implicit core inflation rate ceiling of 2% the Fed has which will stall the economy every time it starts to get moving.QE's intent has been to prevent outright deflation and on that measure it has been a success. They have not been trying to return nominal spending to trend so I don't think that is the metric to judge the program on. Frankly, they make it quite clear that they will not accept the inflation needed to do that. That strikes me as exactly the same mistake that happened in those two prior situations. I do agree that each time it will be less effective mainly because the political pressure will force it to come later and in smaller amounts than it is needed.

Of course there are downside risks to doing whatever it takes to hit the goal. Over aggressive policy could cause a price-wage spiral that is difficult to contain. However, I think it is very wrong to be concerned about then when inflation is currently so low and has been so low signifying that money is now too tight. I am not a fan of making the problems we have worse while worrying about problems that there is no evidence are close to occurring. Wages are stagnant and market inflation expectations are as low as they have ever been. The Fed has a ton of credibility with the market as an inflation fighter and I am confident that they would rein inflation in before it got out of control. Hell, they are so concerned about inflation that they are constantly sabotaging any effort to escape the largest deflationary bust this country has seen in 80 years. That some credibility!

What happened during Carters administration?

An inflationary burst that was later treated by Volcker. In the 30 years since, the Fed has moved to stamp out inflation any time it began to show up in wages. Doing this has gained them this credibility I speak of. Any look at long term bond rates or inflation rates will make clear that a massive shift in policy occurred since then. .

How do you see wage inflation control affecting the increasing gap between rich and poor?

I think when money is too tight in general it will tend to increase this gap with slower wage growth and higher unemployment.

And why is money tight now?

 

[Phil Elliott]

Pass a jobs bill today. There isn't one yet? Ok, let me know when you have one.

 

[Slapdash]

SD, those articles basically just say that the Fed has already done what Japan should have. I agree that it helped slow the fall, but it certainly hasn't put us back on track. We're already doing huge amounts of QE, and it's not having the demand effect they talk about. IIRC, most economists agree that QE gets less effective each time you have to use it.

The part I disagree with is "do whatever is necessary to hit that target". There are negative impacts of many of these policy decisions as well- we can't totally ignore those.

I agree there are many fiscal things we can do, but I have very little faith that we will do them. We blew it with the stimulus, so I don't blame people for being against another one, even though it seems necessary.

I think the key difference between QE and their recommendations is the open-ended nature of the commitments they advocate. Having a limited value on these purchases makes it much harder to shape expectations and does not insure the proper liquidity is provided if it beyond the number. Additionally, it still keeps the too low implicit core inflation rate ceiling of 2% the Fed has which will stall the economy every time it starts to get moving.QE's intent has been to prevent outright deflation and on that measure it has been a success. They have not been trying to return nominal spending to trend so I don't think that is the metric to judge the program on. Frankly, they make it quite clear that they will not accept the inflation needed to do that. That strikes me as exactly the same mistake that happened in those two prior situations. I do agree that each time it will be less effective mainly because the political pressure will force it to come later and in smaller amounts than it is needed.

Of course there are downside risks to doing whatever it takes to hit the goal. Over aggressive policy could cause a price-wage spiral that is difficult to contain. However, I think it is very wrong to be concerned about then when inflation is currently so low and has been so low signifying that money is now too tight. I am not a fan of making the problems we have worse while worrying about problems that there is no evidence are close to occurring. Wages are stagnant and market inflation expectations are as low as they have ever been. The Fed has a ton of credibility with the market as an inflation fighter and I am confident that they would rein inflation in before it got out of control. Hell, they are so concerned about inflation that they are constantly sabotaging any effort to escape the largest deflationary bust this country has seen in 80 years. That some credibility!

What happened during Carters administration?

An inflationary burst that was later treated by Volcker. In the 30 years since, the Fed has moved to stamp out inflation any time it began to show up in wages. Doing this has gained them this credibility I speak of. Any look at long term bond rates or inflation rates will make clear that a massive shift in policy occurred since then. .

How do you see wage inflation control affecting the increasing gap between rich and poor?

I think when money is too tight in general it will tend to increase this gap with slower wage growth and higher unemployment.

And why is money tight now?

Nominal spending about 10% below trend is a good place to start. Low interest rates are also a sign that money has been too tight.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Jobless Claims, Inflation Rise, Manufacturing Gets WeakerPublished: Thursday, 15 Sep 2011 | 8:37 AM ETBy: CNBC.com staff and wireApplications for unemployment benefits continued to rise in the past week, while inflation pushed higher and a key manufacturing index weakened.The weekly jobless claims number, which is closely watched as an indicator for employment trends, unexpectedly rose 11,000 to 428,000, well ahead of estimates of 411,000.The consumer price index, meanwhile, gained 0.4 percent when including volatile food and energy prices, after an increase of 0.5 percent in July. The so-called core CPI, though, gained 0.2 percent, which was in line with expectations.Consumers paid more for a range of goods and services last month, pushing up inflation and squeezing Americans' purchasing power.For the 12 months ending in August, the core index surged 2 percent, the biggest year-over-year increase in nearly three years. That's at the top end of the Federal Reserve's informal inflation [cnbc explains] target. It could limit the central bank's ability to take further steps to try to revive the economy.Food prices rose 0.5 percent, the biggest increase since March. That was due to higher prices for cereals and dairy products. Energy costs increased 1.2 percent."The large CPI gain in the face of weakening confidence, slowing consumer spending and softening production provides a poor backdrop for expansion," said Citigroup economist Steven C. Wieting in a note to clients.Other indicators from a major government data release this moring also were not not encouraging: New York manufacturing activity contracted in September for the fourth consecutive month.Also, the US current account deficit narrowed unexpectedly to $118 billion in the second quarter from a revised $119.6 billion in the first quarter as exports hit a record high.Current DateTime: 07:06:17 15 Sep 2011As a percentage of gross domestic product, the current account deficit—which measures the flow of goods, services and investments in and out of the US—narrowed to 3.1 percent in the second quarter from 3.2 percent in the first quarter.Exports of goods and services rose to $716.7 billion, eclipsing the previous high set in the second quarter of 2008.Economists had been expecting the current account gap to widen to $122.5 billion from a previously reported $119.3 billion.Jobs Market LanguishingThe number of people applying for unemployment benefits jumped last week to the highest level in three months.Applications have been rising over the past month, a signal that the job market remains depressed.Applications typically drop during short work weeks, as was the case with the Labor Day observation. In this case, applications didn't drop as much as the department expected, so the seasonally adjusted value rose. A Labor spokesman said the total wasn't affected by Hurricane Irene.Still, applications appear to be trending up. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, rose for the fourth straight week to 419,500.Applications need to fall below 375,000 to indicate that hiring is increasing enough to lower the unemployment rate. They haven't been below that level since February.The economy added zero net jobs in August, the worst showing since September 2010. The unemployment rate stayed at 9.1 percent for the second straight month.The job figures were weak because companies hired fewer workers and not because they stepped up layoffs, economists said. Business and consumer confidence fell last month after a series of events renewed recession fears.The government reported that the economy barely grew in the first half of the year. Lawmakers fought over raising the debt ceiling. Standard & Poor's downgraded long-term U.S. debt for the first time in history. Stocks tumbled—the Dow lost nearly 16 percent of its value from July 21 through Aug. 10.Businesses added only 17,000 jobs in August, which was a sharp drop from 156,000 in July. Government cut 17,000 jobs. Combined, total net payrolls did not change.Unemployment benefit applications are considered a measure of the pace of layoffs.The total number of people receiving benefits dipped 12,000 to 3.73 million, the third straight decline. But that doesn't include about 3.4 million additional people receiving extended benefits under emergency programs put in place during the recession. All told, about 7.14 million people received benefits for the week ending Aug. 27, the latest data available.More jobs are desperately needed to fuel faster economic growth. Higher employment leads to more income. That boosts consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of economic growth.Higher gas and food prices have cut into their buying power this year. The economy expanded at an annual rate of just 0.7 percent, the slowest growth since the recession officially ended two years ago.The weakness has raised pressure on the Federal Reserve and the White House to take steps to boost economic growth.Many economists expect they will decide at its meeting next week to shift money out of short-term mortgage-backed securities and into longer-term Treasury bonds. The move could push down longer-term interest rates, including rates on mortgages, auto loans and other consumer and business borrowing.President Barack Obama has proposed a $447 billion job-creation package. He wants to cut Social Security taxes for workers, extend unemployment benefits, cut taxes for small businesses and spend more federal money to build roads, bridges and other public works projects.Republicans oppose the president's plan, particularly after he said he wants to pay for it with higher taxes on wealthier households, hedge fund managers and oil companies.© 2011 CNBC.com

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44532025

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Amazing that people continue to believe govt spending is the solution. We had a bubble. A giant bubble. (tech bubble, for those who are a bit slow) That bubble burst....and stupid govt policy led to another bubble. (real estate) The folks who want more spending are basically saying "please, please, please....re-inflate the bubble." They don't want to pay the piper....which is an understandable emotion. But it's a stupid approach.We should have taken our medicine back in 2000 and let the economy stabilize naturally. IF we had done that, the US wouldn't have faced a giant real estate bubble, and likely would have been back on track for more than a half-decade. Instead, we will be lucky to get through the current economic malaise by 2015.

What post-1999 policies led to the Real Estate bubble?

Was this a serious question, or just meant to be comedy value?

 

[Parrothead]

Jobless Claims, Inflation Rise, Manufacturing Gets WeakerPublished: Thursday, 15 Sep 2011 | 8:37 AM ETBy: CNBC.com staff and wireApplications for unemployment benefits continued to rise in the past week, while inflation pushed higher and a key manufacturing index weakened.The weekly jobless claims number, which is closely watched as an indicator for employment trends, unexpectedly rose 11,000 to 428,000, well ahead of estimates of 411,000.The consumer price index, meanwhile, gained 0.4 percent when including volatile food and energy prices, after an increase of 0.5 percent in July. The so-called core CPI, though, gained 0.2 percent, which was in line with expectations.Consumers paid more for a range of goods and services last month, pushing up inflation and squeezing Americans' purchasing power.For the 12 months ending in August, the core index surged 2 percent, the biggest year-over-year increase in nearly three years. That's at the top end of the Federal Reserve's informal inflation [cnbc explains] target. It could limit the central bank's ability to take further steps to try to revive the economy.Food prices rose 0.5 percent, the biggest increase since March. That was due to higher prices for cereals and dairy products. Energy costs increased 1.2 percent."The large CPI gain in the face of weakening confidence, slowing consumer spending and softening production provides a poor backdrop for expansion," said Citigroup economist Steven C. Wieting in a note to clients.Other indicators from a major government data release this moring also were not not encouraging: New York manufacturing activity contracted in September for the fourth consecutive month.Also, the US current account deficit narrowed unexpectedly to $118 billion in the second quarter from a revised $119.6 billion in the first quarter as exports hit a record high.Current DateTime: 07:06:17 15 Sep 2011As a percentage of gross domestic product, the current account deficit—which measures the flow of goods, services and investments in and out of the US—narrowed to 3.1 percent in the second quarter from 3.2 percent in the first quarter.Exports of goods and services rose to $716.7 billion, eclipsing the previous high set in the second quarter of 2008.Economists had been expecting the current account gap to widen to $122.5 billion from a previously reported $119.3 billion.Jobs Market LanguishingThe number of people applying for unemployment benefits jumped last week to the highest level in three months.Applications have been rising over the past month, a signal that the job market remains depressed.Applications typically drop during short work weeks, as was the case with the Labor Day observation. In this case, applications didn't drop as much as the department expected, so the seasonally adjusted value rose. A Labor spokesman said the total wasn't affected by Hurricane Irene.Still, applications appear to be trending up. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, rose for the fourth straight week to 419,500.Applications need to fall below 375,000 to indicate that hiring is increasing enough to lower the unemployment rate. They haven't been below that level since February.The economy added zero net jobs in August, the worst showing since September 2010. The unemployment rate stayed at 9.1 percent for the second straight month.The job figures were weak because companies hired fewer workers and not because they stepped up layoffs, economists said. Business and consumer confidence fell last month after a series of events renewed recession fears.The government reported that the economy barely grew in the first half of the year. Lawmakers fought over raising the debt ceiling. Standard & Poor's downgraded long-term U.S. debt for the first time in history. Stocks tumbled—the Dow lost nearly 16 percent of its value from July 21 through Aug. 10.Businesses added only 17,000 jobs in August, which was a sharp drop from 156,000 in July. Government cut 17,000 jobs. Combined, total net payrolls did not change.Unemployment benefit applications are considered a measure of the pace of layoffs.The total number of people receiving benefits dipped 12,000 to 3.73 million, the third straight decline. But that doesn't include about 3.4 million additional people receiving extended benefits under emergency programs put in place during the recession. All told, about 7.14 million people received benefits for the week ending Aug. 27, the latest data available.More jobs are desperately needed to fuel faster economic growth. Higher employment leads to more income. That boosts consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of economic growth.Higher gas and food prices have cut into their buying power this year. The economy expanded at an annual rate of just 0.7 percent, the slowest growth since the recession officially ended two years ago.The weakness has raised pressure on the Federal Reserve and the White House to take steps to boost economic growth.Many economists expect they will decide at its meeting next week to shift money out of short-term mortgage-backed securities and into longer-term Treasury bonds. The move could push down longer-term interest rates, including rates on mortgages, auto loans and other consumer and business borrowing.President Barack Obama has proposed a $447 billion job-creation package. He wants to cut Social Security taxes for workers, extend unemployment benefits, cut taxes for small businesses and spend more federal money to build roads, bridges and other public works projects.Republicans oppose the president's plan, particularly after he said he wants to pay for it with higher taxes on wealthier households, hedge fund managers and oil companies.© 2011 CNBC.com

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44532025

"unexpectedly rose" - we hear this every report..

 

[Sarnoff]

how unexpected!

 

[pantagrapher]

Why the job hunt is so hard.

Very nice graphic from WaPo.