Obama Signs Unemployment Benefits Bill

Maybe if we stopped raising taxes on businesses and individuals so the government can afford to extend unemployment benefits, businesses and individuals could actually afford to hire people and pay them a wage permanently.

Seriously, all these lazy unemployeed people are the whole reason the economy tanked in the first place! If only big businesses could be free of the shackles of taxes & regulations, then they could really soar.

Wait, what? Oh, I'm sorry, the opposite of that is true? Got it.

At no point do I blame "lazy unemployeed people" for the ills of the economy.

I fundamentally disagree with the logic behind how to generate positive growth in America again. By stimulating the economy, we're artificially propping up a failed system, and making the relative value of every dollar in circulation worth less.

"We need to increase domestic productive capacity again"

Ding ding ding. This is the answer.

"and part of the the way to do that is to lower the burden on businesses to operate in the US."

But not necessarily this way.

I don't think it takes an economics major to tell you that the fundamental goal of capitalism and free market is greed and ensuring a constant + increasing flow of income. We have seen how companies get to that point all throughout history, and this is the fundamental root cause of issues in this country.

It isn't hard to see what's happening here: America was built on free business values and I do not disagree that big business has taken that for a ride and then some. When the time comes to take a closer look, plenty of ideological theories magically appear that seem to cloud the basic causes of the problems. I'm tired of big business trying to collude themselves as similar to the 'small businessman' as their rhetoric constantly says, even when they get preferential treatment much different than the small business owners they claim to look out for.

'lowering the burden' almost always comes down to 'making businesses less accountable'. There has to be a major breaking point for this system to change and until then, you will continue to see a dwindling middle class both in the US and the rest of the western nations, a concentration of power burgeoning from the new bases of manufacturing and raw materials (basically China + the Middle east), and an increasingly higher gap between the top 10% of the world (which also has and will invariably shrink in numbers) and the bottom 70% of the world.

I hope historians will look back on the 'American Empire' as favorably as they did the Roman and Greek empires before us.

I generally agree with everything you said, but take issue with a few things. Prior to 1913, and the enactment of the Glass Steagal Act, there was a very surprising trend in our country.... When our currency was tied to gold (a.k.a couldn't be produced out of thin air), the prices of things actually went DOWN over time. The goal of capitalism then became "How can I maximize efficiency, sell more things for less money, and maximize my leisure time?" Ever since then, when inflationary spending was baked into our currency, you're correct, the goal of capitalism became a lot more of "who can I get to land on the wrong side of this trade".

The fundamental root cause of all of our problems now is that the government has decided to step into business and create unsustainable prices and irrational competition. When the government mandates that credit standards be lowered in the 90s on home loans, banks were forced to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back, and they knew they had to sell that debt. Then when they sell that debt, they appear greedy (and believe me, they certainly were when it came down to preditory measures to originate those loans) when in reality they're just trying to wipe out their exposure to government mandated bullsh*t loans.

So, you're right, America was built on free business values...but then it was overtaken by Government business values....which, in nearly every single circumstance, has created price bubbles, artificial and unsustainable risk, and eventually a bail-out from the taxpayer. This entire crisis was almost perfectly predicted in 1999. (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09... IF there was free business, these loans would have never been made in the first place. (again, just one small example).

So, I disagree. I don't think "lowering the burden" means less accountability... it means that the government CAN have oversight (and must), but can't MANDATE certain risks be made. Business needs to determine risk on their own, and needs to FAIL on their own too if they incorrectly assess that risk. We can't bail out anyone, ever. Then you lose incentive to stay profitable, and accountable to your employees/shareholders/customers.

Sorry...that was long.

Heck, don't look at me. I think every single asset of every defaulted bank should be seized by the government in a socialist revolution, & any surplus capital should be dumped into state renovation projects of mass transit & water infrastructure. That is just my way; I'm a dreamer.

I'll one up your dreaming:

That type of stuff is the ONLY stuff the government actually should be spending money on. INFRASTRUCTURE! Quit guaranteeing home loans, bailing out banks/gm/aig, and other idiotic measures to completely squander the American Taxpayers dollar and throw risk-assessment and pricing strategies out of whack. Work on mass transit, work on cleaner water, and MAKE THIS COUNTRY WIRELESSLY CAPABLE GOD DAMNIT! Shouldn't I have been able to get Wi-Fi anywhere like 10 years ago? Or did the money for THAT go towards guaranteeing the sub-prime mortgage on Lloyd Blankfein's cleaning Lady's vacation home in Bermuda she couldn't even remotely afford?

No taxes were raised to pay for this.

We borrowed that money from the Chinese. More deficit spending, but this one has a nice feel to it.

and how will we pay off those deficits? Tax revenue.

This is a new spending initiative, right? They didn't stop spending on something else and start paying for this, right? So how will they pay for this? How does the government pay for anything?

...taxes

I didn't say that the government doesn't collect taxes.

I said that taxes were not raised for this. That remains true.

But...the point I'm trying to make is, it doesn't remain true. This is a brand new liability, and the only way they can pay for this liability is through increased taxation of some form. So, will they call it the "Unemployment benefit extension tax" to be enacted as soon as this is implemented into law...no. But, taxes will be raised to compensate for this increased expenditure...in some form or another, at some point or another. That is true.

But it just isn't a given that this $34 billion of deficit spending (which is really not much) will result in a tax increase down the road. There is plenty that could be cut in the future to compensate for the increased expenditure (which is really the debt service).

I do agree that increasing the deficit increases the likelihood of a future tax increase. But given the size of this action compared to the size of other actions, I think the hypothetical future tax increase we're discussing would more correctly be attributed to the Bush tax cut and the Iraq war.

You're right, it isn't a given. It's just a high high liklihood based on the track record of our current and former president (who REALLY aren't different enough sadly).

Could they cut spending on something else to pay for this? Absolutely... I would just be refreshing CHANGE of pace from everything else Obama has done. And, you're also absolutely right that the burden of our deficit certainly isn't from this initiative...far more from that assinine Iraq War.... but when is this idealogical "solution" going to stop? When are people going to realize that stimulus and bail-outs and increased benefits, etc., aren't the answer, but just an artificial infusion of cash to keep prices are unsustainably high levels? We are LIKELY paying for this in taxes, rather than keeping that money in our pockets. WE NEED something resembling closer to a depression in this country so that prices can once again fall to justifiable and supportable levels. We don't need to keep stimulating them and keeping them at artificially high levels to make it look like everything is fine again. Quit delaying the inevitable and handing the bill to our kids.

You're right, it isn't a given. It's just a high high liklihood based on the track record of our current and former president (who REALLY aren't different enough sadly).

Could they cut spending on something else to pay for this? Absolutely... I would just be refreshing CHANGE of pace from everything else Obama has done. And, you're also absolutely right that the burden of our deficit certainly isn't from this initiative...far more from that assinine Iraq War.... but when is this idealogical "solution" going to stop? When are people going to realize that stimulus and bail-outs and increased benefits, etc., aren't the answer, but just an artificial infusion of cash to keep prices are unsustainably high levels? We are LIKELY paying for this in taxes, rather than keeping that money in our pockets. WE NEED something resembling closer to a depression in this country so that prices can once again fall to justifiable and supportable levels. We don't need to keep stimulating them and keeping them at artificially high levels to make it look like everything is fine again. Quit delaying the inevitable and handing the bill to our kids.

What are you talking about? Obama signed the biggest tax cut in US history. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-waldman/is-obamas-tax-cut-the-big_b_166337.html

I've heard that before, but that still doesn't take into account the relative impact of taxes. Raising taxes on businesses at this juncture is just going to make them leave the US.

Which...goes to your other point. Why do you think all these jobs have been shipped overseas for the past 10+ (more like 50+) years? Because the cost of doing business is too high here.

And, I disagree with your assessment of the problem. This is like the classic example of the introduction of the loom during the industrial revolution. Hypothetically: it used to take 100 people to make 100 knit sweaters...then when somebody invented the loom, it only took 10. Everyone was upset that jobs were lost...but in reality, over time, more sweaters were made, the PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY was increased, sweaters could be sold for less, and over time more people were hired in the sweater industry.

The problem in America is that we've completely lost our productive capacity, and everyone just pushes around paper these days. We need to increase domestic productive capacity again, and part of the the way to do that is to lower the burden on businesses to operate in the US.

"The problem in America is that we've completely lost our productive capacity, and everyone just pushes around paper these days."

This is an interesting point. I think another part of the equation is that so many people go to college these days and most of the people that go to college don't want to end up in physical labor jobs. They want the thinking/pushing paper jobs.

I recall reading a statistic about a shockingly low number of people in this country that actually graduate from 4 year college relative to the overall population. I think you'd be surprised how starved this country is for middle class jobs. It's how this country became great, and how it will have to be if we want to continue to be great again.

I agree people want the paper pushing jobs, because they make more money. But if your blue collar job was pegged to your performance, and you could make more money for producing more things more efficiently (rather than 'hey, I can work here for 10 years and then live off my pension the rest of my life...so who cares) you would see an INCENTIVE for people to INCREASE THE PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY. Not trying to yell...just highlight key words.

So how exactly do you think the government is going to afford to extend unemployment benefits? Even if he cuts taxes short term, this is still a long term liability that will be paid for in some form of taxation (the only way government generates revenue).

This is no different than Bush giving tax cuts to the wealthy upper class while simultaneously starting a $trillion braindead war.

CHANGE!

Historically, tax rates are at one of their lowest points ever. In the 80s, corporate tax rates ranged from 15% to 51%, they now range from 15% to 39%. The top marginal income tax rate was 70% (it was 91% in the 1960s. That's right, NINETY-ONE PERCENT!), and now it's 35%.

The lack of jobs now has more to deal with the fact that the amount of job opportunities for lower-skilled workers are disappearing as their jobs have been shipped overseas for the past 10+ years, or taken over by automation. This article shows a study of how advancements in IT may lead to lower salaries and a lower number of jobs for unskilled workers. http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/06/workers-need-education-to-stay-ahead-of-it-curve.ars

As far as more skilled, college-educated types go, I think it's because the companies they work(ed) for have adapted to doing their work with less people. Current employees are willing to work longer hours to keep their jobs or move ahead. I know I've been working harder, so maybe that's just anecdotal evidence, but it's all I got.