American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Stan,

Can you talk a little about why your current benefit package includes health insurance? It's a hugely expensive benefit (a good plan for 2000 people can easily be $20M / year) so I assume you have some underlying business reason to offer it.

If you drop the benefit, what effect, if any, do you expect the change to have on your ability to recruit and retain employees?

Are there specific provisions in the reform package that will force you to drop it or is your current thinking based on a belief that the package as a whole will increase premiums to an unaffordable level?

If premium costs are the issue, what were you thinking about the future of your health benefit prior to the reform package? Most companies were already seeing 8-12% on-going annual increases in premiums so your costs were already tracking to double every 5-8 years. At what point were health care costs going to overwhelm you anyway?

If you drop employer health care insurance for your employees, what will you do with the savings? Fund a health reimbursement plan? Increase wages to partially offset the the cost that your employees will pay to get health insurance on the open market? Create or improve another benefit, e. G. 401K match? Take it to the bottom line? What about the following year when you could have expected premiums to increase by 8%? Will you start to factor health care inflation into raises?

It seems to me that if there was an effective market for individual health insurance, we would all be better off than under the current system where employees are limited to the options provided by their employer. I suspect at this point, most companies would prefer to be out of the health insurance benefit business but realize that it would leave their employees without a viable alternative and themselves at a serious disadvantage in attracting and retaining employees.

;)

So many points and put-downs, so little time. Where to start.

I agree people who run businesses have the best ideas, views and experience - to create and grow successful businesses where success is defined as profit and return to the investor or risk-taker. And of course many companies do 'give back' - to some extent. This is commendable. I was simply taking issue with this notion that workers should not share at all in a company's financial successes.

But this discussion on what's best for business, is not the same discussion as how to improve society. It sounds like some of you think its the same discussion. It's a related discussion but not identical. You need to include the failures of the private sector not just the successes.

You can try and marginalize me and imply I do not have proper credentials for the discussion, but the fact is there are millions of Americans who share my views, including among them successful and wealthy businessmen.

This post by easygo is without question one of the stupidiest posts I have ever read. What a dope! It is obvious that this fella is NOT an employer in the US. What idiot would ask about employee retention with double digit unemployment! Not sure what planet EasyGo lives on but it's NOT earth. Duh. WAKE UP! It's not 1995 anymore! Health benefits don't drive retention in this current market. Dropping health benefits in small business is absolutely a reality in lieu of obamanations socilaist policies. Currently, an employee who performs their job at a level so incompetent that they are terminated can enjoy 65% of their colbra paid for 15 months by their previous employer (pre-obama was 0%) Do the math and wonder why small business is considering dropping health care as a benefit. Thanks Obama for again disinsentivizing small business for offering healthcare. The addition of looming national government run healthcare was just the cherry on the sundae. At the end of the day, small business drives the american economy EasyGo. Obama has done everything he can to inhibit small business since the clown took office. As my previous posts have indicated, novemeber is just around the corner. Get ready for real change EasyGo and stop proving to all of us you are a fool. Better you remain silent and at least make us wonder if you might be an idiot. LOL.

Happy Mongering All. Toyman

One more.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Estan, he did share. They got paid![/QUOTE]So you are implying the level of pay is irrelevant? That risk-taking is the only thing worthy of being rewarded?

[QUOTE]Classic "The pie is only so big" liberal thinking. The fact is that no one person's success crowds out another's success. We can ALL be successful, which would result in the creation of wealth, AKA a bigger pie.[/QUOTE]Untrue. There is a limit on demand and hence on supply. And many sectors of the economy are basically closed to competition without substantial startup capital (eg. molding/manufacturing industries). True one could raise venture capital if they had some brilliant new idea, but existing industries have so prolifically protected their IP through patents that that's a long shot.

If you want to talk about bullshit, this "create a bigger pie" argument is a huge pile. We've already seen what happens when the pie gets bigger - the wealthy take almost the whole thing, the middle class gets a small slice and the poor get a few crumbs. In fact there is data showing that real income growth was actually NEGATIVE for the poorest 20% over the past three decades. Look it up.

[QUOTE]More liberal bullshit. The reality is that the single entrepreneur is the most efficient economic competitor known to man and can always dance circles around the big, lumbering companies.[/QUOTE]Not in all or even most cases, see above.

[QUOTE]Yea, thinking "[I]if we band together we can commandeer this thing called 'democracy' and use it to force the producers to give us parasites some of the wealth that they have earned for themselves.[/i]"[/QUOTE]I would say the most economically significant parasites today are the rich elite who are squeezing the American workforce in their quest for ever-increasing profits and accumulation of wealth. Especially the ones who don't do any real work but merely live off investments.

[QUOTE]Once again, more liberal bullshit. The reality is that the wealth in the USA is spread much more evenly across all segments of our population than in any other country in the world.[/QUOTE]Jackson I challenge you to provide the evidence for this. All the analyses I have seen show the exact opposite. Here's my evidence, please post yours:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient[/url]
[url]http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten]So you are implying the level of pay is irrelevant? That risk-taking is the only thing worthy of being rewarded? [/QUOTE]The appropriate compensation package is determined by the broader market taking into account many factors including the value contributed to the operation via the particular skill set in question and local supply and demand for those skills.

[quote=]Untrue. There is a limit on demand and hence on supply.[/QUOTE]The world is flat, damn it!

My dear Esten, we all know that the pie is fixed in size and cannot grow. As part of the ruling class, we must convince the plebes that the pie can get bigger so that they: 1) will leave our piece alone, 2) do all the shit work we don't want to do, and 3) accept a lower wage today with the promise of upside participation tomorrow. If you would be so kind as to keep this information to yourself and refrain from disseminating it to the masses, we of the ruling class would be eternally grateful.

Just a couple questions, because supply and demand are finite and inexorably limited, how did GDP grow from $223.2 billion in 1945 to $14.3 trillion in 2009? Similarly, US household net worth inexplicably grew from $666.5B to $59.52T during that same period. I don't get it, if the pie can't grow, where did all this wealth come from?

Also, as a side note, while the rich have been getting richer, Esten would like us to believe that the poor are getting poorer. However, from 1975 to 2007, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line in nominal terms only increased from 12.3% to 12.5% (during a period when the US population grew 42%)

Interestingly, during that same period, the percentage of people living below the poverty line represented by Caucasians (you know, crackers, white devils, whitie, etc) increased by 8.25% while the percentage represented by blacks dropped 21.7%. Therefore, using Esten's logic, the black population is prospering at the expense of Latinos! Let's get 'em!

[quote=] And many sectors of the economy are basically closed to competition without substantial startup capital (eg. Molding / manufacturing industries)[/QUOTE]You are an f-ing moron bleating out information based on absolutely nothing but hot air that flies out of your ass. It may be difficult to compete in molding because of productivity and technological advancements. However, in the US alone, there are more than 3,000 third-party (I. E. They products for other companies) electronic manufacturers. All but a handful of these companies are small to medium size businesses started by entrepreneurs with little or no external start-up capital.

[quote=]True one could raise venture capital if they had some brilliant new idea, but existing industries have so prolifically protected their IP through patents that that's a long shot.[/QUOTE]Again, talking out your ass. Most venture investments today are service and process oriented (remember the part about our service economy? There still is plenty of investment in proprietary tech, particularly in the bio space, which is chasing innovation. If new, proprietary innovation could not be protected to ensure that the inventor is able to recoup his investment and make a profit (if a market for his widget ever develops) there would be no innovation. Maybe if the VCs sought out some of your poor, innovators they could cut them in on the action and get them to invent some cool new stuff.

[quote=]If you want to talk about bullshit, this "create a bigger pie" argument is a huge pile.[/QUOTE]Got it. Thanks for explaining away the growth in net worth and GDP in such a succinct manner.

[quote=]We've already seen what happens when the pie gets bigger - the wealthy take almost the whole thing, the middle class gets a small slice and the poor get a few crumbs.[/QUOTE]I am getting dizzy! First you tell me the pie can't get bigger. Now you tell me it can get bigger but that the wealthy take all the money. The numbers show that massive growth over the past 60 years or so has been matched by new jobs that have more than kept pace with the growth in the economy and the population. During this time, I thought workers have been protected by the govt and the unions, but you tell me that they have been enslaved to work without just compensation. This is so unfair! They should at least be recognized as indentured servants instead of working class!

[quote=]In fact there is data showing that real income growth was actually NEGATIVE for the poorest 20% over the past three decades. Look it up.[/QUOTE]You look it up. Put a couple of legit numbers and calculations in with all of your bull shit (I don't think links to Gini count)

[quote=]Not in all or even most cases, see above. [/QUOTE]Above erroneous citation was obliterated, try again.

[quote=]I would say the most economically significant parasites today are the rich elite who are squeezing the American workforce in their quest for ever-increasing profits and accumulation of wealth.[/QUOTE]I would say look in the mirror. I am not suggesting that you are a parasite living directly off the host (I. E. Working Americans) rather you and people that think like you are facilitating and enabling the expansion of the entitlement class and accelerating its drain on America, its people and its economy. The problem with too many parasites is that they will eventually kill the host. Then the maggots move in and strip the carcass clean leaving nothing, not even compost to grow something new.

[quote=]Especially the ones who don't do any real work but merely live off investments.[/QUOTE]With names like Kennedy, Kerry, Gore. Sound like you are describing congress and liberal elites.

[quote=]Jackson I challenge you to provide the evidence for this. All the analyses I have seen show the exact opposite.[/QUOTE]You see what you want to see. You are living in an alternate reality, which is entirely your right to do so. Please enjoy it.

[quote=] Here's my evidence, please post yours:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient[/url]
[url]http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html[/url][/QUOTE]Please extol use with Gini's virtues. He was definitely a left-wing loon, however, for some reason I don't think he'd be a fan of our current president (hint: he (Obama) doesn't look too arian to me, if you know what I mean)

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye] You are an f-ing moron bleating out information based on absolutely nothing but hot air that flies out of your ass. [/QUOTE]WW - as they say, if the shoe fits!

Ad hominem attacks are the intellectual midgets last resort when faced with cogent insights that puts their own imaginary truths to the test.

Why anyone still posts on this thread is truly a mystery.

[QUOTE=Esten]If you want to talk about bullshit, this "create a bigger pie" argument is a huge pile. We've already seen what happens when the pie gets bigger - the wealthy take almost the whole thing, the middle class gets a small slice and the poor get a few crumbs. In fact there is data showing that real income growth was actually NEGATIVE for the poorest 20% over the past three decades. Look it up.[/QUOTE]Esten, I responded to this earlier: [url]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?p=410528#post410528[/url]

There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by two Swedish economists that came to conclusions that are the opposite of yours. I can't link to it because it's only available to subscribers.

Like some others here on the other side of the debate from you, I have problems with the Gini coefficient. But I'd point out the following. Some of the most dynamic economies with the highest growth rates have higher Gini coefficients than the USA. For example, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia. These countries, like the United States, are creating wealth for all. Countries in Western Europe with low GDP growth rates and high unemployment have low Gini coefficients. And Japan's growth stagnated as the Gini coefficient decreased.

Yes, you can make everyone equal. And everyone will become poorer. This experiment has already been tried, in places like the Soviet Union and Cuba and Sweden. It didn't work.

Walleye is the repeated name calling really necessary? I could keep responding in kind, but it would just become a childish exchange. It reflects poorly on you.

I still hope to hear back from Jackson. I enjoy my exchanges with him more, as he makes a better effort to counter/debate the points without resorting to personal attacks.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye]My dear Esten, we all know that the pie is fixed in size and cannot grow.[/QUOTE]You take it too literally so I need to spell it out the long way. Of course supply and demand grow over time. But the case Jackson made was that no one person's success crowds out another's success. This is so obviously untrue that I wonder if Jackson is just baiting me to have a good laugh when I object! Once-successful businesses are put out of business all the time by competitors competing for the same customers. As one example nearby, a family-owned pizza joint closed recently when another pizza company (part of a large national chain) opened up across the street. So much for the little guy dancing circles around the big, lumbering companies.

You can't have millions of Americans go and start millions of new businesses and all be profitable. The demand just isn't there. It's a path for a small fraction of the population. It's not a broad-based solution to addressing issues stemming from extreme wealth inequality.

[QUOTE]Also, as a side note, while the rich have been getting richer, Esten would like us to believe that the poor are getting poorer. However, from 1975 to 2007, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line in nominal terms only increased from 12.3% to 12.5% (during a period when the US population grew 42%) [/QUOTE]I am glad to see you quoting actual data. But how ironic the data actually proves my point. You gotta be kidding me! This is too funny! That trend is the wrong direction. As the population keeps increasing a greater % of the population will live in poverty.

[QUOTE]You are an f-ing moron bleating out information based on absolutely nothing but hot air that flies out of your ass. It may be difficult to compete in molding because of productivity and technological advancements. However, in the US alone, there are more than 3,000 third-party (I. E. They products for other companies) electronic manufacturers. All but a handful of these companies are small to medium size businesses started by entrepreneurs with little or no external start-up capital. [/QUOTE]Now I'm dizzy. You call me a moron yet you agree with me (on molding)(does that make you a moron too?). I'm sure there are examples in manufacturing that are not too prohibitive in terms of startup capital. I didn't mean all. But there are plenty of areas in manufacturing that require millions to get off the ground. My point is that realistic opportunities for starting a business with little startup capital (or not being fenced-out by patent protection) are limited to only certain areas. I'm not saying there aren't opportunities. It's not worth debating.

[QUOTE]You look it up. Put a couple of legit numbers and calculations in with all of your bull shit (I don't think links to Gini count)[/QUOTE]The Gini coefficient is a statistical parameter. And you're trying to attack the guy and imply his numbers aren't correct. ROTFLMAO! On the basis of what - thin air? Your attempts to discredit Gini are really comical. Forget about him if you want, there are other sources that show the same thing. I posted one which you ignored. I'll extend my challenge to you as well Walleye - put up your evidence (not your opinion) that the US doesn't have significant wealth inequality compared to other countries (especially developed countries).

You mentioned some Democrats. Well Democrats are the ones most likely to address this issue (to some extent anyways) by raising taxes on investment income.

BTW you guys have surely heard the recent chatter about keeping tax rates on capital gains and dividends at 20%. I would benefit from this, but I'm not too crazy about it. But surely you guys must have something positive to say about this.

[QUOTE=Tiny12]There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by two Swedish economists that came to conclusions that are the opposite of yours. I can't link to it because it's only available to subscribers.

Like some others here on the other side of the debate from you, I have problems with the Gini coefficient. But I'd point out the following. Some of the most dynamic economies with the highest growth rates have higher Gini coefficients than the U. S. -- for example, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia. These countries, like the United States, are creating wealth for all. Countries in Western Europe with low GDP growth rates and high unemployment have low Gini coefficients. And Japan's growth stagnated as the Gini coefficient decreased. [/QUOTE]I found and read the WSJ article you mentioned. There are some good points in there. Dems are not so big government as the right media makes them out to be (I'm sure I'll get some howling here from others) The big item is health care, but I don't think there is a strong case that countries with government run health care have weaker economies or lower quality of life metrics than the US.

The Gini coefficient undoubtably has limitations but it seems to be used by many in both government and academia. But there are other sources demonstrating economic inequality if you prefer. For example see US Census Bureau data, 1979-2005, first barchart here:

[url]http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm[/url]

I'm not sure about correlation between Gini and unemployment. The Wikipedia pages show that Australia, Canada, Japan and most Western Europe countries have lower unemployment and lower Gini coefficients than the US.

[QUOTE]Yes, you can make everyone equal. And everyone will become poorer. This experiment has already been tried, in places like the Soviet Union and Cuba and Sweden. It didn't work.[/QUOTE]Dems aren't trying to make everyone equal. Not even close.

[QUOTE=Esten]Walleye is the repeated name calling really necessary? I could keep responding in kind, but it would just become a childish exchange. It reflects poorly on you.[/QUOTE]How does that saying go? If the shoe fits. If the latter argument were true, the current president would not be BHO.

[quote=]I still hope to hear back from Jackson. I enjoy my exchanges with him more, as he makes a better effort to counter / debate the points without resorting to personal attacks.[/QUOTE]But Alinsky tells me to atack the messenger.

[quote=]You take it too literally so I need to spell it out the long way. Of course supply and demand grow over time.[/QUOTE]Perhaps you just made a poor argument.

[quote=]But the case Jackson made was that no one person's success crowds out another's success. This is so obviously untrue that I wonder if Jackson is just baiting me to have a good laugh when I object! Once-successful businesses are put out of business all the time by competitors competing for the same customers. As one example nearby, a family-owned pizza joint closed recently when another pizza company (part of a large national chain) opened up across the street. So much for the little guy dancing circles around the big, lumbering companies.[/QUOTE]Just because some big competitor comes to town doesn't mean you can't expand into new products or services or an entirely new business. Just because you opened up a pizza parlor on the corner of Lost and Disoriented doesn't mean you have a birthright to all pizza transactions in the neighborhood.

[quote=]You can't have millions of Americans go and start millions of new businesses and all be profitable. The demand just isn't there.[/QUOTE]The demand is infinite if you deliver the correct goods and services. If everyone opens up a pizza parlor, they will fail.

[quote=] It's a path for a small fraction of the population. It's not a broad-based solution to addressing issues stemming from extreme wealth inequality.[/QUOTE]If small business and newly-started small businesses are the key to jobs in a recovery, I guess then it would be the path for the population. If entrepreneurial ventures are responsible, in large part, for solving unemployment, I would venture (no pun intended) that it is a broad-based solution for addressing: unemployment, poverty and distribution of wealth.

[quote=]I am glad to see you quoting actual data. But how ironic the data actually proves my point. You gotta be kidding me! This is too funny! That trend is the wrong direction. As the population keeps increasing a greater % of the population will live in poverty.[/QUOTE]You probably shouldn't have skipped math class to get high all the time. If the percentage in poverty is slightly down over the period of time, then, the percentage is down. What is striking is that despite a huge increase in population, including many low and no-income types, the overall percentage has not increased.

[quote=]Now I'm dizzy. You call me a moron yet you agree with me (on molding) does that make you a moron too?[/QUOTE]If the shoe fits, I will gladly wear it. However, your point is that big, scary, evil monopolstic ghost ships (cause appearantly they don't have any employees who receive salaries, benefits, etc) have taken over industries (including molding) without out there being any benefit to society. That is clearly wrong. Is it better to have a Wal-mart employing 300 people or 20 mom and pop stores employing 3 people each? As for molding, I clearly stated that the realities of the industry have changed, those that can't compete have themselves to blame.

[quote=]I'm sure there are examples in manufacturing that are not too prohibitive in terms of startup capital.[/QUOTE]Again, showing your ignorance. The electronic manufacturers to whom I alluded generally range in size from 60-120K sqft of manufacturing floor space with 3-10 million dollars worth of equipment within the facility and generate from $15 to $60 million in revenues per year and employ 50-200 people.

[quote=]I didn't mean all. But there are plenty of areas in manufacturing that require millions to get off the ground.[/quote]It all starts with one client, working out of one's garage. There are 3,000 examples of this in the above-mentioned sector.

[quote=]My point is that realistic opportunities for starting a business with little startup capital (or not being fenced-out by patent protection) are limited to only certain areas. I'm not saying there aren't opportunities. It's not worth debating.[/QUOTE]Your point is that you want a turn-key, fully-operational, no-risk venture where you can sit in a Herman Miller chair, stare out the window and not worry about performance. Of course that isn't worth debating.

[quote=]The Gini coefficient is a statistical parameter. And you're trying to attack the guy and imply his numbers aren't correct.[/QUOTE]Yes.

He was a chief propagandist for fascism. "Gini was also a leading fascist theorist and ideologue who wrote The Scientific Basis of Fascism in 1927. Gini was a proponent of the concept of organicism and applied it to nations."

Of course he can be trusted to be completely objective in his research and recommendations. Just like wacko leftists can be trusted to provide honest data and analysis about the status of the global climate situation.

[quote=]ROTFLMAO![/quote]Don't hurt yourself.

[quote=]On the basis of what - thin air? Your attempts to discredit Gini are really comical.[/QUOTE]I quite agree. Fascists during the 20th century were just a hoot. Particularly those guys in the brown shirts with their ovens and showers.

[quote=]Forget about him if you want[/QUOTE]Even if I could, I suspect that there are a few who can't forget the legacy of more than 10 million innocents killed by fascists during the last century.

[quote=]there are other sources that show the same thing.[/QUOTE]Garbage in, garbage out. If it is based on Gini, it is crap, in my opinion.

[quote=]I posted one which you ignored. I'll extend my challenge to you as well Walleye - put up your evidence (not your opinion) that the US doesn't have significant wealth inequality compared to other countries (especially developed countries) [/QUOTE]Because the US has more wealthy people, trying to force an apples to apples comparison is great fodder for the left.

[quote=]You mentioned some Democrats. Well Democrats are the ones most likely to address this issue (to some extent anyways) by raising taxes on investment income.[/QUOTE]Some are now waffling on this stating that it will decrease tax revenue. More anti-business, anti-growth legislation. Rah, rah! Let's kill the engine.

[quote=]BTW you guys have surely heard the recent chatter about keeping tax rates on capital gains and dividends at 20%. I would benefit from this, but I'm not too crazy about it. But surely you guys must have something positive to say about this.[/QUOTE]See above comment. That would be good. Better if it were eliminated all together because every cent of a capital gain has already been taxed multiple times. Repeal the cap gains tax today, good bye jobless recovery, hello second term for Obama. Oops, on second thought, let's keep the Obamalaise going for a while longer.

[QUOTE=Esten]The Gini coefficient undoubtably has limitations but it seems to be used by many in both government and academia. But there are other sources demonstrating economic inequality if you prefer. For example see US Census Bureau data, 1979-2005, first barchart here:

[url]http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm[/url]

I'm not sure about correlation between Gini and unemployment. The Wikipedia pages show that Australia, Canada, Japan and most Western Europe countries have lower unemployment and lower Gini coefficients than the US.

Dems aren't trying to make everyone equal. Not even close.[/QUOTE]Esten, You'd make a good politician. At present the US is recovering from a recession, and unemployment benefits in the US are more generous than they've been historically. If you look back over the last 20 or 30 years, back to Reagan, unemployment in the US has been much lower than in Australia, Canada or Western Europe. You're right about Japan. Please note that when I mentioned Japan, I didn't include it in the same category with Western Europe, regarding unemployment.

Among the ways you can go about improving income equality are (1) higher taxes on ordinary income that would discourage over-achievers from working harder and small businesses from taking risks, (2) higher taxes on capital gains and dividends and interest that would reduce savings and investment, and (3) overly generous unemployment benefits. I think there's a strong correlation between "3" and the rate of unemployment. The correlation between measures of income inequality and unemployment would be weaker.

I think each side accuses the other of extremes. I did this to you when I brought up Cuba and the Soviet Union. Most people on my side of the issue don't think people should do without education, health care or food because they don't have money. Look, for example, what Jackson has done with his time and money to support the less fortunate in Argentina. And, contrary to what you've been writing, I suspect Walleye et al are free market types, that believe much more strongly than most democrat politicians (and the majority of republicans) that there should be competition among businesses.

Regarding your link, I don't think you get my point. I'm not arguing about whether statistical measures indicate there's more inequality in the US versus, say Europe. I am arguing that the average middle class or lower middle class American is better off than his counterpart in Europe, and I believe statistics of MEDIAN income adjusted for purchasing power support that. Someone at the 50th percentile of income in the US is more likely to have a larger house, a nicer car(s), air conditioning, etc.

Someone at the 50th percentile of income in the US is more likely to have a larger house, a nicer car (s) air conditioning, etc."

Along with a big mortgage, a car loan, a student loan, and more credit card debt that mostly exist (for better and worse) due to government policies designed to make credit both cheap and widely available. The leverage of the "credit society" means that when things are good, they are very good, but when things are bad, they are really, really bad.

It also helps that prices are significantly lower in the USA because of government policies like free trade and a relatively light (compared to other countries) government footprint in most business activities.

Sure the stock market has improved, but how can it be a 'recovery' with no new jobs, millions on unemployment, crippling national debt and a dour outlook for the future?

Why hasn't the recovery kicked in? The Fed has added more than $3T to the money supply and artificially held rates low. There is more than $1T in excess reserves at the Fed and more than $2T sitting on the sidelines on corporate cash. That is $3T that could be investing in jobs. Why isn't it being deployed? Can't Obama just order them to give it all to Acorn? Why don't these holders of capital put it to work?

Uncertainty. Uncertainty regarding fiscal policy, regulation and taxation. All of which Obama has control over and all of which he feigned moderation whilst on the campaign trail. He forced healthcare against the will of a majority of Americans. Between just two bills there are more than 5,000 pages, hundreds of new regulations and hundreds of new taxes. No one knows the full extent of this. Therefore they are uncertain. Therefore they sit on cash.

Easy Go, I agree. Too much debt and current account deficits have boosted our standard of living, and that's not good.

Esten, yea lets tax the heck out of all those capital gains so we punish all those fat cats. Last time I checked it was investments from retirement funds that had the biggest chunk of the market, so let's just tax the heck out of all those folks that are retired and planned their retirement around their investments of their money since most did not count on Social Security – I know I'm not and I am only a very few years away from pulling the plug. While you are at it that will have the unintended consequence of drying up investment capital for new companies as well as any expansion of existing companies, why invest if the government is going to take a big chunk of it.

Easy Go, yea it was really tough when the school loan programs, banks and credit card companies came along and FORCED folks to sign those loan agreements and then twisted their arm to make all those ancillary purchases of other goods! What the hell happened to personal responsibility? Don't give me the BS about the school loans, mortgages, loans and credit cards, nobody held a gun to their head they did it of their own free will, got in a jam and don't want to accept responsibility and look for someone else to blame.

I put myself through my undergrad and both post grad programs, no loans. The work I did while in my undergrad program in a college town where the minimum wage then was less than half of what it is now included cleaning chemistry & biology labs, caring for lab rats and pigs, literally shoveling shit out cow barns and the list goes on. (Shoveling shit got me prepared for what I see on this board and from liberals)

Too many people are looking for someone to blame and not taking responsibility for their own actions. We have bred two generations of them with Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" - welfare and Medicaid.

Those who can do, those who can't complain.