Barry is absolutely clueless on how to handle this stuff...all he's done throughout his political career is campaign for the next seat/office that appeals to him. He has never made a real stand on any one issue...has no desire to work with both parties to fix what is ailing this country, and has appointed imbeciles and morons to cabinet posts that are their because they have connections to him or are Clinton Administration retreads....

God help us if our enemies decide to do us in over the next four years....

It's worse than that. Not only is he clueless about how to do the job, he doesn't care about doing the job. Did you see the story over the weekend about how he's revamping the National Security Council, adding positions and concentrating security policy there? Reid and the Bitch Princess wrote the bailout bill, the Bitch Queen is controlling foreign policy, Geithner is running Treasury on his own, and little Barry the Pinhead is doing absolutely nothing except talk. He's carefully building an administration in which all the actual decision-making power is held by others, and he's just a figurehead.

Yeah, stupid Barry, he should have listened to the Republicans who want to fall back upon the proven tax cut and deregulation economics that got us to this rosy spot in the first place.

It truly is shocking that Obama has not been able to end the recession in 3 weeks, what a hack. McCain flew to DC and solved it in one week, didn't he?

All the Republicans have offered besides more tax cuts is measures to squeeze the income of UAW workers because those guys make way too much money at $40 an hour, while at the same time crying about efforts to limit CEOs walking away with multi-million bonuses because limiting pay is, wait for it, anti-capitalist.

Making the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent is what we need to do, dontcha know? They've worked so well for us up to this point...and yes, deregulation is always good. We need more creative financial flights of fancy like credit default swaps...also, we need to continue the Bush policy of taking a hands off policy towards the future Madoffs of the world. LO f'n L.

I don't recall anyone suggesting the Bush tax cuts as the way out of the recession, but keep thwacking that strawman if it makes you feel good.

What will stimulate growth--and is the only thing that is actually proven to stimulate economic growth that I'm aware of offered by either party--is a cut in our sky high corporate tax rates (second highest in the world) and a reduction in the capital gains tax.

But perhaps our brilliant economists Jim and Macgruber can please explain how a stimulus package that is filled with spending that kicks in several years down the road in 2011-12 will impact a recession that the CBO and other economic experts suspect will begin to correct on its own in 2009.

Bush a deregulator? That makes me laugh, literally laugh out loud. Because, contrary to the mythos of the Left, Bush has enacted more regulation, not less. Of course, the two geniuses that dropped by probably think Hoover was a laissez-faire capitalist along with Nixon and the Bushes. The sad fact is that truly free market Presidents are rare, because politicians hate the idea that there is anything above their own (mediocre) intellects, like say the choices made by millions of people betting their own money on the accuracy of their decisions. Personally I'd hold that the free market Presidents this century are Harding, Coolidge, Eisenhower, and Reagan.

The problem with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't so. -Ronald Reagan

It bears continuous repeating:

DJIA end of session on January 4th 2007, the start of the Democratically controlled 110th Congress: 12,800.18*
National unemployment rate for December 2006: 4.5%
Federal Deficit for 2006 $247 Billion
Average monthly GDP growth for 2006: 3.4%
Since December 2007, at least 3.57 million jobs have been lost.

So Jim and Macgruber, are you going to repent for that garbage? You aren't allowed to say things that are false.

Thanks for the quick response Confed Yank. and sorry it took me so long to get back to you.

90% of the Senate Republicans voted for the Demint amendment to the Stimulus Bill, an amendment that was nothing but a slew of tax cut proposals. Every Rep talking head I've seen talking about the economy has been pushing tax cuts, and crying about spending, from the Presidential campaign right up until today. That's why I mentioned the tax cut 'strawman'.

As for the speed of job creation, of course some of the spending would not create jobs immediately, it's a market not magic. But how can you in one breath worry about the speed of job creation while in the next breath talk about corporate and capital gains rate cuts as the answer? Businesses aren't going to create jobs today based upon the expectation of marginally increased profits in the coming years. They create jobs in response to increased consumer demand, how exactly would a corporate rate cut increase consumer demand in the short term?

Jim and Mac speak as one...
DEregulation never happened. Actually the regulations, always in some flux, came to be applied in such a way that they DEMANDED that those who have no power or perhaps intent to repay loans be made loans. Gee.

Whatever, what these creepy anti-american pukes believe or disbelieve is moot. Liberalism as we know it today is nothing but a luxurious fiction now abrading rapidly against the guardrail of reality. Barry's BS will pass. It will make things catastrophically worse and even the geniuses who voted for Obama will have to see simple sense.

As for Bush's culpability, it is real and great. The policies we knew as Compassionate Conservatism, basically a more competent Liberalism, was the lesser of two evils but we must acknowledge that the "kooks" who denounced Bush as a hopeless squish and RINO were right. But those policies were consensus and, as we see now, would have been geometrically worse under Democrats. I find a strange, late-developing respect for Bill Clinton. He actually saddled these idiots for a while and held off the lunacy for a bit. Jeepers.

Obama is going to spend us right into something must worse than the "Great Depression." Between the Congress and Obama, they are going to bankrupt the nation before future generations get the bill.

Jim, what got us into this mess in the first place were two government sponsored entities, Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae. Franklin Raines, Democrat, Obama advisor and former CEO of Fannie Mae began a program in 1999 to issue bank loans to individuals with low to moderate income and to ease credit requirements on loans that Fannie purchased from banks.

It was interesting when a few of the major bank CEOs today (just a couple hours ago) showed amazement and chagrin at just what Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would be doing with the TARP II monies given that they expected to pay off the TARP I money on time or early and had no need for additional TARP loans (unless they looked cheap).

Is the economy really getting worse or is the Obama administration just blowing it up to look better when the economy eventually comes around ?

"They create jobs in response to increased consumer demand"

Actually, no, they create jobs in anticipation of increased consumer demand. Successful businesses don't wait to start producing a product until after they see the demand; they have to have the product ready when the demand shows itself.

Laying out a stable, predictable and favorable business environment now will create jobs now, not later, and will increase consumer confidence to spend now, rather than putting off spending out of fear of layoffs (even Keynes would agree with that).

Every existing business is the equivalent of a "shovel-ready" project, to use Obama-speak.

I have news for you folks. Our nation is already bankrupt and has been for quite some time now. What difference does it make how much the stimulus bill eventually costs? It's all play money anyway. We've been operating on money created out of thin air, and paying interest on it mind you, for decades.

With the mortgage crisis on going, no one seems to be addressing the serious possibly of stagflation or hyperinflation and the impact that would have on ARMs. Printing all this money to cover the debt can certainly fire inflation. And if that happens, we ain't seem nothing yet when it comes to mortgage defaults. In the 1981-2 recession ARMs few and far between and with ARM interest rates at 2.48% people still have a problem meeting their mortgage payments.

"Actually, no, they create jobs in anticipation of increased consumer demand. Successful businesses don't wait to start producing a product until after they see the demand; they have to have the product ready when the demand shows itself."

Right. A Starbucks owner will hire extra workers "now" based upon the prospect of paying slightly less in taxes in coming years despite the fact that he has fewer customers in his store.

A plumbing company will hire additional plumbers today with the hope that demand will suddenly spike - no doubt due to all the bored new Starbucks employees drinking free coffee at work.

Manufactures, with inventory they cannot sell at the moment, will hire new employees to start cranking out widgets to join the old widgets on the shelf, as soon as they hear they will pay less in taxes in the coming years.

Seriously, walk me through a scenario where a business will hire people today because of the idea they will pay less in taxes next year - even when they already have more people on hand to meet the current demand for their products.

"Successful businesses don't wait to start producing a product until after they see the demand; they have to have the product ready when the demand shows itself"

This is the dumbest thing I read here, and false in numerous ways. Some companies create the demand. For example, look at the iPod. There were plenty of MP3 players in the late 90's early 2000's, but they failed. Along came the iPod, coupled with better technology and slick marketing, and everyone had to have one. The demand for iTunes was a happy byproduct.

Plenty of companies are successful by moving into existing marketspaces. Companies such as Sanza make decent coin producing cheaper, but less sophisticated mp3 players. This revenue didn't exist before the iPod.

Companies also don't expand drastically to produce and support a given product until it has proven sales. Sure, they hire the necessary R&D staff, but this is never as many jobs as production. For example, this is why new tech is really expensive: you limit factories and assembly lines to that happy medium that will allow you to get the product reasonable availability while keeping your investment reasonable should the product fail and be canceled. Once the market is demonstrated you ramp up production and buy components in ungodly quantities.

Also, this is the second dumbest:
"what got us into this mess in the first place were two government sponsored entities, Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae" While they certainly were mishandled, I'd really like to know how Freddy and Fanny forced Wall street to leverage these mortage backed securities 40 times over and bet their own skin that housing prices would increase 15% every year?

The problem is we removed risk from these decisions. Banks could lend without fear, since they could in turn sell any mortgage to Wall street. Easy money, and banks would have been fools to turn it down. Why wall street bought any and everything I have no idea. Maybe they knew they were too big to fail?

"A Starbucks owner"

Well, if your idea of economic recovery is employing Starbucks espresso-pushers, you're probably correct. On the other hand, if you're deciding when to ramp up production of the Ford F150, and you think you should wait until the demand shows itself, before you start making Fords, well, maybe you better go back to school, Jimmy. Because if people decide they want a pickup, and Ford F150s aren't available, they'll buy Dodges or Toyotas. They won't put their names on a waiting list.

Gay person: Absolutely, we rely on marketing to create (or enhance) a demand. And that supports my point about how production anticipates demand. Steve Jobs didn't wait to see what the iPod marketing campaign would produce for demand before he actually shipped iPods, did he? When people want them, they darn well better be there. And if he miscalculates on demand, there will either be shelves full of iPods, or a run on Zunes.

There will also always be the bottom feeders; people trying to sell low-quality knock-offs to fill a demand, but that means that there's an unmet demand, which usually means the suppliers didn't forecast correctly.

In general, folks that wait to see what the demand is, then try to jump after the fact and fill it, lose.

Proactive beats reactive every time. If you can't anticipate the market, you lose. If you think you can wait for consumers to demand your product before you decide to find a way to supply it, you really have no experience in the market economy, do you?

I'm going out on a limb, here, but I'm guessing neither Jimmy nor the Gay guy have ever actually hired anyone or produced anything, or, in fact, turned a profit in the free market. I have. And I currently do. And I will again in the future, once I get a good handle on where we are with tax policies, and where I think the consumers are in their spending patterns. In the meantime, my former employees are looking for work elsewhere (and having pretty good success at finding it, actually.)

"Consistency is all I ask; give us this day our daily task." -- Tom Stoppard, "Rosencranz and Guildenstern are Dead."

Here's the problem notropis, there already are F-150s sitting on lots all over the world, you seemed to miss that part of my post, you know, goods already sitting on shelves.

Companies aren't laying off workers because they are afraid of their 2011 tax bill, they are laying off workers because they have products they can't sell. Telling Ford to build more F-150s just in case isn't economics, it's suicide.

I'd love to hear more about your free market success, especially the part where you are currently turning such great profits. With all that profit it's odd you're laying people off.

"especially the part where you are currently turning such great profits. With all that profit it's odd you're laying people off."

A) I can't find any place where I said I'm currently turning great profits. I'm not. That was your typically snarky embellishment. I did say that I'm turning a profit. If I weren't, I'd be out of business. And to do so, I've had to cut costs (read: employees). But, in point of fact, the current economic situation is seriously less than ideal, especially if you're in a business where you need to anticipate demand 6-12 months into the future, as I am.

If you wonder how tax policy affects that: well, I'm much more willing to risk retaining an employee or two against hope for future income if my expenses are less. It's what we call, in probability theory, "expected value."

B) I also can't see where I ever said anything about current backlogs. I merely responded to a statement of yours, a rather stupid one, that I quoted in full:

"They create jobs in response to increased consumer demand"

My point was, and is, that that's not how the private sector creates jobs. Job creation is not, in general, a response to demand; it's an anticipation of demand. Ford, right now, is struggling with anticipating demand in 2010 and 2011, while it decides how many employees to retain and how many to lay off, and at which plants, in 2009.

C) I was apparently correct in my guess; that is, you have absolutely no personal experience in the market, as an employer, or a business person.

D) If you want to address yourself to points I actually make, then go ahead. If you just want to continue to blow air out of your nether regions, then I won't bother to respond.

This coming from the guy who has ignored the majority of what I've already written here, and makes up stupid and demeaning nicknames for people he does not agree with. Yeah you've done a great job of responding to the points others have made. Pat yourself on the back for me.

If it's stupid to say businesses add employees in response to increased demand, and conversely decrease employees in the face of diminished demand, why the heck did you lay people off? You shouldn't have cut costs, you should have increased them, boosting production and hence generating the inevitable increased profits when folks start buying all the goods you made for them before they even cared to buy them.

What is/was this business any way?

Well, I wrote a reply, and the spam filter ate it. I'll try again:

"This coming from the guy who has ignored the majority of what I've already written here"

I couldn't possibly care less what "the majority" of what you've written here is/was. You made a particularly stupid comment, and I responded to it, to wit:

"They create jobs in response to increased consumer demand"

Next:

"makes up stupid and demeaning nicknames for people he does not agree with"

Let's see. I called you "Jimmy" when you call yourself "Jim." Sorry if you found that offensive. Someone else refers to themselves as "somegayname" and I paraphrased it as "gay person." I don't see where my reference is any more demeaning than the original. But whatever blows your dress up.

"If it's stupid to say businesses add employees in response to increased demand, and conversely decrease employees in the face of diminished demand, why the heck did you lay people off? "

It's tempting to just note the fact that you're a total idiot, and let it go, but I'll try once more:

I lay people off in anticipation of bad times, not in response to them. My business was off about 15% in the 4th quarter of '08, but I anticipated a further reduction of 25-30% in the first half of '09, so I downsized. When/if things look good going forward, I'll ramp up, before -- not after -- the fact.

That's just good business. And something you clearly don't understand.

"I couldn't possibly care less what "the majority" of what you've written here is/was."

Cool, then stop crying about me not addressing every point you think you've made. Deal? You want to shorten my list of three kinds of businesses, Starbucks, mid-sized skilled shop, and a factory, to just Starbucks so you can laugh at me, great, but again don't cry about me not addressing the points you feel you've made.

"I lay people off in anticipation of bad times, not in response to them. My business was off about 15%... "

Demand dropped, you cut jobs.

"When/if things look good going forward, I'll ramp up, before -- not after -- the fact."

If demand increases, you'll hire people.

Now go buy an F-150 already, there are thousands of them just sitting there.

I don't think notropis has ever contributed to a free market economy. Even in his made up example, he arbitrarily defines cutting jobs at -15% as anticipating the market, where waiting for the other -5% drop to -20% would have been responding to the market.

I pointed out an example of a company successfully creating the demand for a product, not relying on some oracle to tell them to have ipods on the shelves at a certain date. Other companies had made players available and failed. You could also lump the ipod in as response to demand for portable music players created by the sony walkman decades earlier. As another example, in the 80s Atari and Nintendo established the market for home video game consoles. 20 years later, Microsoft and Sony make a good chunk of change from this market. Sony didn't enter until the mid 1990's (playstation I), while microsoft didn't enter until the late 90's (xBox I). Nintendo faded lost this market for a while, then hit a homer with the Wii. So notropis is once again spectacularly wrong with the statement: "In general, folks that wait to see what the demand is, then try to jump after the fact and fill it, lose".

Reality shows that much of capitalism is responding to established market demand with better or cheaper products. There is nothing "bottom feeding" about filling a market demand, thats capitalism. For example, I own a sanza mp3 player that I bought for 5$ for running, so I don't have to worry about dropping or losing it. I would never have taken my iPod running, but before the iPod I was content with my walkman.

I've given specific examples to show that your generalizations don't hold water. In response you just make more false generalizations. Some specific examples from the business world (if they exist) might help your argument. Lying about owning your own business and contriving situations do not support it. I've listed verifiable situations in consumer electronics with specific companies. You replied with "One time at band camp...".

Most of you folks don't understand the relationship between a tax cut and P&L. If you are a business and your taxes are cut, You see budget relief almost immediately. Your profit side goes up. You don't have to put aside as much each month to pay your regular tax. The effect is immediate. You may have to pay monthly or quarterly, but less tax money is gone until you settle with Uncle every year. Usually a tax rate change will change the Tax rate tables immediately.