Obama’s Economic Plan Starts with J-O-B-S
By Johnny Roosh
…and ends with L-O-S-T.
Barack Obama declared last week that his economic plan begins with “one word that’s on everyone’s mind and it’s spelled J-O-B-S.” This raises the stubborn question that Senator Obama has never satisfactorily answered: How do you create more jobs when you want to levy higher tax rates on the small business owners who are the nation’s primary employers? (emphasis mine)
The answer is “you don’t.” Don’t believe it?
How about a word from an expert. A Democrat at that (emphasis mine).
Democratic Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus of Montana. Here is what Mr. Baucus wrote in a joint press release with Iowa Republican Charles Grassley on August 20, 2001, when they supported the income tax rate cuts that Mr. Obama wants to repeal:
“. . . when the new tax relief law is fully phased in, entrepreneurs and small businesses — owners of sole proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, and farms — will receive 80 percent of the tax relief associated with reducing the top income tax rates of 36 percent to 33 percent and 39.6 percent to 35 percent.”
Then they continued with a useful economics tutorial:
“Experts agree that lower taxes increase a business’ cash flow, which helps with liquidity constraints during an economic slowdown and could increase the demand for investment and labor.”
Twelve Senate Democrats voted for those same tax cuts. And just to be clear on one point: An increase in “the demand for investment and labor” translates into an increase in J-O-B-S. So if lowering these tax rates creates jobs, then it stands to reason that raising these taxes will mean fewer jobs. From 2003 to 2007 with the lower tax rates in place, the U.S. economy added eight million jobs, or about 125,000 per month. The Small Business Administration says small business wrote the paychecks for up to 80% of new jobs in 2005, for example.
Apparently there are thirteen Democrats that know what is good for the economy.
Sadly, Barack Obama doesn’t happen to be one of them.
Tax “cuts” for people that don’t pay taxes in the first place coupled with tax increases for those that already bear most of the burden is a tax hike, net/net.
Tax increases of any sort for anyone is a bad idea right now and will further undermine an economy that is about to get a lot worse, with or without Obama’s “help.” Don’t believe it? Does history offer a clue?
In 1932, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president as the nation was heading into a severe recession. The stock market had crashed in 1929, the world’s economy was slowing down, and all economic indicators in the U.S. showed signs of trouble.
The new president’s response was to restructure the economy with the New Deal — an expansion of the role of government once unimaginable in America. We now know that FDR’s policies likely prolonged the Great Depression because the economy never fully recovered in the 1930s, and actually got worse in the latter half of the decade. And we know that FDR got away with it (winning election four times) by blaming his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, for crashing the economy in the first place.
Change the names, and what is about to happen doesn’t seem so far fetched. Eight more years of hearing about the failed policies of the Bush administration, who pushed the same ineffective stimuless button that Pelosi is proposing. Obama and his Liberal Flunkies have blamed George Bush for everything so far, why stop now?
October 22nd, 2008 at 6:31 am
So the 21 million jobs gained under the Clinton-era tax rates were…
What? An example of the liberal bias of reality?
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:07 am
Not that he is not a liberal through and through but Clinton was probably one of the most conservative Democrats in modern history. Having said that, he was the beneficiary of the Reagan Era, probably the last true conservative President. Remember Jeff, I don’t count GW Bush as a fiscal conservative.
…so it would appear you are making my point for me in that you also equate job creation with economic growth. Will you go as far to realize that tax cuts lead to job creation?
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:31 am
Yeah, Jeff. And let’s not forget William McKinley. Clinton’s success was really a result of the policies of the McKinley administration. And while Clinton’s presidency superficially appears to have been successful, he is actually responsible for all the bad things that happened under George W. Bush. President Obama’s successes will in turn be attributable to the farsighted policies of G.W. Bush.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 am
Perhaps after 8 years of President Obama’s policies we’ll be lucky enough to have a big honkin’ war to turn the economy around.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:50 am
Clinton looks like Milton Friedman compared to Barry:
Barry-Pelosi are going to remove the statute of limitiations on employment lawsuits. So someone worked for your company for 2 months in 1999 will be able to track down a slick lieing lawyer and sue you. You can’t find the other employees who were working there then and/or recall this employ, you lose.
Barry-Ried are going to put in judges who rule in favor of victim classes instead of the merits of the case. You are a Fortune 500 company, a member of victim class sues you, you automatically lose.
Barry-Waxman said they are going to pass legistlation that will have the gov’t to set the wages the private business pays their employees.
Barry wants more Sarbanes-Oxley type legislation.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:57 am
Ahem,
The economy of the 1990’s was spurred by new technology, not Clinton raising taxes. The idea that Clinton raising taxes caused the good economy is about as intellectual as when Zebulon Pike convincing natives that he caused a soloar eclipse… he was merely in the right place at the right time.
As Clinton took office, the computer was little more than a fancy typewriter that could also do math & play crude games. The term “internet” was wasn’t even defined until October 1995. When Clinton took office, the World Wide Web was about 3 years old & consisted of only 26 experimental sites, & search engines didn’t start to show up until the mid 1990’s. In otherwords, to use the web, you had to know what URL to type in… if you had said “Google it” then they would have thought you were Aunt Bunnie the Bigfoot.
The internet exploded from 1994 on showing the highest rate of growth of any previous technology, and forever changed the face of world commerce, culture & technology. Hardly coincidental, the economy under Bill Clinton was completely stagnant from 1993 until 1995. That was after about 10 years of straight growth under the Reagan/GHW Bush years.
The great growth that Clinton & his supporters give his policies the credit, coincides perfectly with the development & growth of the internet, and the growth of the corresponding “Tech Bubble”. The bubble popped, exploded really, in late 2000. The result of this was a RECESSION durring the last months of CLINTON”S SECOND TERM.
Clinton can only intellectually be credited for being the luckiest president to have served.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
Oh, and for those of you falling for the “95% of working families will see a tax cut” line of crap… Don’t forget this golden oldie from 1993:
http://www.iht.com/articles/1993/01/15/cut1.ph
“Mr. Clinton spoke throughout the campaign of the need to redress declining middle-class incomes during the 1980s. He proposed a tax cut for the middle class nearly a year ago, in New Hampshire, and repeated the pledge frequently.”
BUT:
“Seeking to explain why he is backtracking on a campaign promise to cut taxes for the middle class, President-elect Bill Clinton said Thursday that the plan was never a major theme in his race for the White House.”
And that’s why they called him Slick Willie!
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 am
Chuck pulled out of his ass:
Barry-Pelosi are going to remove the statute of limitiations on employment lawsuits. So someone worked for your company for 2 months in 1999 will be able to track down a slick lieing lawyer and sue you. You can’t find the other employees who were working there then and/or recall this employ, you lose.
EASY ONE. WRONG.
Barry-Ried are going to put in judges who rule in favor of victim classes instead of the merits of the case. You are a Fortune 500 company, a member of victim class sues you, you automatically lose.
OOH, ANOTHER GIMME. WRONG.
Barry-Waxman said they are going to pass legistlation that will have the gov’t to set the wages the private business pays their employees.
IT’S CALLED THE MINIMUM WAGE. IT ALREADY EXISTS.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
AC, simply saying “wrong” may pass as a check-mate in Clownsville, but in reality land, you actually have to have some sort of evidence to be considered credible.
Government set wages are quite different from a simple minimum wage. As it’s name suggests, Minimum wage is only a floor, the minimum you can pay an employee, anything beyond that level is left to market forces. A doctor can be paid anything from $5.85 per hour up to any ridiculous amount above that, because there is no cap.
Government set wages is when the bureaucrats decide how much someone will be paid, at all levels & profession. This is very similar to the type of fascist planning that FDR tried in the 1930’s. For example, they may decide that a Doctor should be paid at least $100,000 per year, but no more than $125,000 per year. A Clown may be mandated to $15,000 minimum but capped at $22,000 per year… of course that would benefit a certain clown that has particularly lame act, but as for the economy as a whole, & for the concept of freedom, it will be disastrous
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 am
AC, you obvisouly don’t know what you are taking about:
Obama said he is going to remove the statute of limitations on employmenet discrimination lawsuits. Surely you are not calling The One a liar.
Obama has said many times that he is going to put judges in place that “konw what it feels like to be….” then he listed the usual leftwing victim groups.
Obama and the Democrats said they are going to pass equal wage legislation, where the gov’t tells private employers what they are going to pay for various jobs. This is way above minimum wage.
To be more accurate, the gov’t tells employers what they are going to pay employees right before the employer lays them off.
Barry said he and the Democrat congress are going to pass all of the above. I don’t think Obama is lying this time.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
From Obama’s campaign website(barackobama.com):
Combat Employment Discrimination
Obama and Biden will work to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that curtails racial minorities’ and women’s ability to challenge pay discrimination. They will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
The fair pay act (http://www.pay-equity.org/info-Q&A-Act.html):
The major provision of the Fair Pay Act prohibits wage discrimination based on sex, race, or national origin among employees for work in “equivalent jobs.” Equivalent jobs are those whose composite of skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions are equivalent in value, even if the jobs are dissimilar. The Act is a natural extension of the 1963 Equal Pay Act, which is limited to sex-based discrimination in the same jobs. For enforcement purposes, the Fair Pay Act allows class action lawsuits to be filed and provides for compensatory and punitive damages. It also fills the information gap for workers by requiring some employers to disclose to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) general job classifications and their pay statistics (although it maintains individual confidentiality). The bill prohibits a company from lowering any employee’s wage rate in order to implement fair pay.
Never pay attention to a self-identified clown.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Chuck said: “Obama said he is going to remove the statute of limitations on employmenet discrimination lawsuits.”
Really Chuck? Maybe you could link to a quote of him saying that. Unless, you know, you’re full of shit.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Not Angry Clown, Angry Fool!
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Yeah Chuck! When are you going to follow the intellectually superior example of Angry Fool & start backing up your words with sources & links to supporting evidence? Chuck, when are you going to start posting well thought out concepts like the Angry Fool, rather than just saying things like “wrong!” and “pulled that out of your ass”. I mean come on!
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Mr. Shirt: that’ll be $20 for the editing
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Dude, you rock! That’s $20 Zimbabwe dollars, right? 🙂
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Sir Clowninghampshire. Silly chap! You’ve confused your ability to type with the ability to discern. You’re soon to be a ward of the State in your diminished condition.
…which is why you’re a lib right?
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Shirt – if you’ve got Z Dollars, you only need to give me ten. They’re worth way more than Washington’s.
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
October 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Link to the above.
http://www.thestreet.com/s/obama-doggedly-pursues-female-voters/markets/marketfeatures/10425506.html?puc=googlefi&cm_ven=GOOGLEFI&cm_cat=FREE&cm_
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
So you have an employee who worked for you for 3 months in 1998. Now she sues you. All the co-workers from that time have moved on. The manager from then is either dead or doesn’t recall the employee.
You lose.
October 22nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Yeah. That’s not the law. That’s not what Obama proposes. You wingnuts are working fact-free again. Terry provides a link, but it doesn’t support your silly claim that he wants to get rid of the statute of limitations in employment cases, Chuck. You’re just wrong. As usual.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Clown, have one of your girls read the bill for you:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1843is.txt.pdf
What it means, oh ridiculous one, is that if you have an employee (or an ex-employee you have compensated within last 180 days) that feels she was passed over for a promotion or given an inadequate raise by your company any time within her employment period she can sue.
The really chilling Obama law is the ‘fair pay act’.
I love the phrase “equivalent in value”. To whom? Obviously not the employee and the employer. The market already takes care of that.
It will be determined by our ethical, non-ideological politicians and judges.
Socialism here we come!
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I tried to post a reply to Clown, but it hasn’t made it through torturous moderation process yet. Or perhaps it vanished into the aether.
Short version: the Fair Pay Restoration Act renews the discrimination offense every payday + 180 days. That is the only time limit. If you belong to a designated victim group, and you feel that thirty years ago your company gave you a raise that was too small or denied you a promotion you have standing to sue.
Ironically it’s possible that you could sue for an offense that took place before title VII was enacted back in ’64.
Read the F’n laws Obama is sponsoring, AC. Fer Gawd’s sake your going to vote for him.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
But it’s SOOOOOOOOO much easier to be a lefty if you don’t pay attention.
P.S. AC, it’s great to see you can construct a comment without using the words “shit” or “ass”! You’re progressing.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:46 pm
JRoosh,
Sounds like a deal, you got change for a $1,000,000 Z bill? It’s the smallest I’ve got. 😉
October 23rd, 2008 at 5:20 am
Gee, Terry, somehow your explanation still doesn’t support Chuck’s stupid claim that soon-to-be-President Obama wants to “remove the statute of limitations on employment discrimination lawsuits.” It merely gives you six months to file after the last payday on which you were fucked over. Chuck says “say you have an employee who worked for you for 3 months in 1998.” Guess what, Chuck. That employee blew the statute of limitations in the Clinton administration.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 am
You are splitting hairs, clown.
Under the “fair Pay Restoration Act” you can sue your current employer if you feel you were discriminated against thirty years ago, even if the actual person who committed the alleged discrimination is dead or long gone along with all your coworkers at the time.
The trial lawyers will love this. It’s an open invitation to shakedown artists.
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Yeah, as long as you worked for the same company thirty years ago and the discriminatory pay continues up through *180 days ago*, yeah, you can sue. And if all the evidence is missing, well, that’s your tough luck cause the plaintiff has the burden of proof.
it’s easy to tell when a wingnut is flat wrong: he says the other guy is “splitting hairs.”
October 23rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Sounds like a deal, you got change for a $1,000,000 Z bill? It’s the smallest I’ve got. 😉
Can I just buy you a drink at the next Keegan’s event? You can have Bill C’s. He didn’t show up at the debate event, plus he voted for Marteen.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I totally agree with angryclown, but he is splitting hairs.
Oh no!
September 4th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
[…] Sounds as if you ought to fire JRoosh as your financial advisor and hire Kevin Ecker. […]