Hello:

I'm a businessman. You SHOULD listen to me. I make sense. Instead, you listen to politicians. I don't know why.

I HIRE people when I can't meet the demands of my marketplace... It's no more difficult than that. I DON'T hire because somebody gave me a tax break to hire somebody. If I did, what's he going to do? Sit around?? If I don't have work for him, I'm going to go broke and won't be ABLE to file a tax return to claim my credit...

Does "uncertainty" have anything to do with it? NO! When I have a customer clamoring for service, I don't look into the tax code to see if I should HIRE somebody... NOBODY does. Really - NOBODY! Certainly, you can SEE the logic in what I say, even if you're NOT a businessperson...

That's not to say that lower taxes won't be beneficial in the long run, but it has NOTHING to do with hiring people NOW. Demand is what will cause me to HIRE, just like DEMAND will cause every other employer to hire.. Demand is NOT created by lower taxes. Demand is created by putting cash dollars in the pockets of consumers... If that means EXPANDING unemployment, then DO it. If it means EXPANDING the distribution of food stamps, then DO it.

Cutting the deficit doesn't cause me to hire either... Can you imagine?? Somebody comes looking for work, and I tell him that I need to see how much the country owes before I can hire him... Nahh... That don't happen in the real world.

excon

You make great points and I agree completely. I don't know anyone that hires someone simply for a tax break... are you kidding? That is a joke, isn't it? Tax breaks are not the answer but then again, I don't think the government really has any answers or cares if they do... just as long as it looks like they're trying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

I'm a businessman. You SHOULD listen to me. I make sense. Instead, you listen to politicians. I dunno why.

1) I HIRE people when I can't meet the demands of my marketplace... It's no more difficult than that. I DON'T hire because somebody gave me a tax break to hire somebody. If I did, what's he gonna do? Sit around??? If I don't have work for him, I'm gonna go broke and won't be ABLE to file a tax return to claim my credit...

2) Does "uncertainty" have anything to do with it?? NO! When I have a customer clamoring for service, I don't look into the tax code to see if I should HIRE somebody... NOBODY does. Really - NOBODY! Certainly, you can SEE the logic in what I say, even if you're NOT a businessperson...

3) That's not to say that lower taxes won't be beneficial in the long run, but it has NOTHING to do with hiring people NOW. Demand is what will cause me to HIRE, just like DEMAND will cause every other employer to hire.. Demand is NOT created by lower taxes. Demand is created by putting cash dollars in the pockets of consumers... If that means EXPANDING unemployment, then DO it. If it means EXPANDING the distribution of food stamps, then DO it.

4) Cutting the deficit doesn't cause me to hire either... Can you imagine??? Somebody comes looking for work, and I tell him that I need to see how much the country owes before I can hire him... Nahh... That don't happen in the real world.

excon

---

On the original quote I have added line numbers to make it easier to understand what Im addressing.

1) Maybe I missed something. When I listened to the speech the other night I didn't hear that the tax credit was specific to new hires in general. Only to those that had been unemployed for more then 6 months.

Again maybe I missed something.

2) Uncertainty has to do more with investment then it does with hiring on a short term. If you need the extra help I don't think as has been the case you jump right out and hire someone right away. The norm has been to work your existing workforce a little more as in overtime until a certainty that the business can support a new worker. That's not to say that hiring someone right away is bad practice. But until certainty is achieved there is really no place for a new position.

3) Demand is created by revenue. And the more in the consumers pockets the more likely they are to spend it. Tax breaks have the advantage of giving the money back to the source rather then to some giant company that won't make it past the 2 year mark.

4) Cutting the deficit can be a good thing. It strengthens the dollar and provides confidence in the marketplace. A weak dollar leads to inflation and can cause uncertainty. We need that strong dollar. Then as consumers return to the marketplace via jobs and personal spending everyone has a shot at making it in the marketplace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

I'm a businessman. You SHOULD listen to me. I make sense. Instead, you listen to politicians. I don't know why.

---

Ex we listen to those who say something, politicians speak to us through the media, businessmen get on with doing what they are doing. It doesn't mean we agree with politicians

Quote:

---

I HIRE people when I can't meet the demands of my marketplace... It's no more difficult than that. I DON'T hire because somebody gave me a tax break to hire somebody. If I did, what's he going to do? Sit around?? If I don't have work for him, I'm going to go broke and won't be ABLE to file a tax return to claim my credit...

---

You are right, tax shouldn't drive the business, how many times have I said it. A government only has so many tools available. Tax, subsidy, Interest rates, leglislation. So how does it create jobs? Mainly by adding to the government workforce. A government uses tax breaks to put more money in the hands of the public in this case an employer, hoping that they will use this money to expand their business, but what is really happening is that business are cutting their losses and expanding their profits. This is what uncertainty does.

Quote:

---

Does "uncertainty" have anything to do with it? NO! When I have a customer clamoring for service, I don't look into the tax code to see if I should HIRE somebody... NOBODY does. Really - NOBODY! Certainly, you can SEE the logic in what I say, even if you're NOT a businessperson...

That's not to say that lower taxes won't be beneficial in the long run, but it has NOTHING to do with hiring people NOW. Demand is what will cause me to HIRE, just like DEMAND will cause every other employer to hire.. Demand is NOT created by lower taxes. Demand is created by putting cash dollars in the pockets of consumers... If that means EXPANDING unemployment, then DO it. If it means EXPANDING the distribution of food stamps, then DO it.

---

So what you are telling us is you want the government to use subsidy as a stimulus, problem is that uncertainty you disregard works against the government because the consumers apply the same philosophy, they are uncertain, so they keep the money to protect themselves from an uncertain future. There's that word again you want to ignore.

Quote:

---

Cutting the deficit doesn't cause me to hire either... Can you imagine?? Somebody comes looking for work, and I tell him that I need to see how much the country owes before I can hire him... Nahh... That don't happen in the real world.

Excon

---

Cutting the deficit isn't about you, excepting that someone has to pay for this mess sooner or later. Putting another billion or two in the hands of consumers won't soak up the excess capacity that exists in the economy. That's the problem, business won't hire until demand increases substantially. Something structural has to happen. It may be that your currency has to take a real dive so that those cheap goods from China aren't so cheap anymore, then what you make will be more competitive and when you sell more overseas production and jobs will expand. How do you do this? Well, you sell off the currency instead of spending trillions supporting it and use the money to pay down the deficit. Adjust your equity ratio that is what a business man would do.

Fact is too many politicians have never actually had a real job in their lives... much less ran a business. They don't have a clue about what it takes to do that and turn a profit... and if you can't turn a profit... you certainly won't be hiring others.

Its not about a temporary break this year... its about what you can count on being obligated to for the next 5 or 10 years...

Ex I couldn't agree more. I hire only when I need employees and for no other reason. We have been able to at least maintain around 150 people average so far but I am worried, very worried. Sometimes it is hard to clear my mind and go to sleep. Why, other than the obvious reasons I worry about my people.

Stringer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Fact is too many politicians have never actually had a real job in their lives....much less ran a business. They don't have a clue about what it takes to do that and turn a profit...and if you can't turn a profit...you certainly won't be hiring others.

Its not about a temporary break this year.....its about what you can count on being obligated to for the next 5 or 10 years.....

---

Smoothy many startup business fail for the same reason and I think this is forgotten in the rush for stimulus, sometimes those who are subsidised have no business acumen.

Politicians don't have the answers, they don't even have the right questions because we are all sailing in unchartered waters. It has been seen before when the population apply reverse psychology to a government policy, the government stimulates and expects spending, the public say no way and save. I recall a long time ago in my own nation when the government put the breaks on and applied a credit squeeze, very different times, but the people said borrow now, it will be harder later, and the sales of new vehicles skyrocketed.

What it comes down to is expectations and confidence, the crisis we have now isn't so much a financial crisis as a crisis of confidence, business doesn't have confidence and so isn't hiring, isn't building inventory. Tax incentives used to be a way of attracting an investment, investment implies a market and the market has tanked. Investors aren't stupid, they can see this and business sees it in their order book

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Smoothy many startup business fail for the same reason and I think this is forgotten in the rush for stimulus, sometimes those who are subsidised have no business acumen.

Politicians don't have the answers, they don't even have the right questions because we are all sailing in unchartered waters. It has been seen before when the population apply reverse psychology to a government policy, the government stimulates and expects spending, the public say no way and save. I recall a long time ago in my own nation when the government put the breaks on and applied a credit squeeze, very different times, but the people said borrow now, it will be harder later, and the sales of new vehicles skyrocketed.

What it comes down to is expectations and confidence, the crisis we have now isn't so much a financial crisis as a crisis of confidence, business doesn't have confidence and so isn't hiring, isn't building inventory. Tax incentives used to be a way of attracting an investment, investment implies a market and the market has tanked. Investors arn't stupid, they can see this and business sees it in their order book

---

True... some business owners don't have the instincts they need to be successful and would fail even in a booming economy, but succeeding in a poor one requires both good instincts, and good business sense, along with a lot of good luck. But politicians essentially set the rules for the game to be played... and those rules in and of themselves can make it easier, or impossible to be successful in business. And recently with all the blame business for everything that has been going on in this country... they have been making it impossible for business.

There is a degree of interrelation... but you have to look at it from the business owners perspective... you aren't going to hire someone if you can't reasonably expect to be able to keep them long term for whatever reason. Between the expense of finding and hiring, there is the training and learning curve to be productive... and the outlay of benefits... including the cost of what you pay into the unemployment fund when you have to let them go... its cheaper to hunker down and wait it out... eventually things will improve. How long that takes politicians do have a major influence in.

The move to cut regulation is sensible, there are many barriers and disincentives for business, but it still takes the willingness to take a risk and some people are not risk takers, particularly in the face of poor economic conditions.

Banks are only going to lend with certainty so instead of tinkering the government should be willing to guarantee business loans for a time to assume some of the risk. Such incentives don't cost money, at least not immediately, and are no worse than the incentivising of housing which got us into this mess or the semi-nationalisation of the auto industry

Hello again,

Here's some more of what you should listen to me about... Politicians talk about bringing the jobs back... But, they AIN'T coming back, no matter WHAT the politicians do. They ain't coming back because it's cheaper to manufacture stuff over seas... After WWII, and the worlds factories were destroyed, we were the only ones who could make stuff - and we did. When the world caught up, they were willing to work for a lot less than our guys would, so the jobs left.. The only jobs that stayed were the ones that foreigners couldn't do.

So, if we're going to create jobs, we need to create some in a NEW industry, cause we can't compete in the old ones anymore... It's not like we've never done it before. When the Japanese started taking our car manufacturing, we turned to chips and high tech stuff.

We need to do that again... Space? Green technology? I don't know. Yup, it's going to take some MASSIVE government investment... Don't be disturbed by my use of the word "investment".. That's how you get ahead - by investing in stuff.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

So, if we're gonna create jobs, we need to create some in a NEW industry, cause we can't compete in the old ones anymore... It's not like we've never done it before. When the Japanese started taking our car manufacturing, we turned to chips and high tech stuff.

We need to do that again... Space?? Green technology? I dunno. Yup, it's gonna take some MASSIVE government investment... Don't be disturbed by my use of the word "investment".. That's how you get ahead - by investing in stuff.

excon

---

Ex perhaps you haven't heard of globalisation. That is where your american companies opted to take their technology and manufacture in a low labour cost country and the process goes on endlessly. When China becomes too expensive they will move to Pakistan or Africa. As far as the Japanese taking your car industry goes, you did that to yourselves along with all the other industries you poured into the reconstruction. I hope you don't expect me to have sympathy for you.

You have lost the race already in green technology, the smart solutions are out there already because your politicians weren't willing to recognise the changing environment. Want a new industry, invent fusion power generation, hover cars, modular housing, something that isn't there right now, not some incremental change to existing technology. Find something that has to be sold in volume. The biggest change you have to make in your economy is to abandon the idea that your minimum wage should remain low as an incentive to employ. No, you pay more and demand productivity, this will get your economy moving again, when you get your workers above subsistence level.

Well, we can't invest in shovel ready jobs because they don't exist. Give a half a billion dollars to a "green job" creator and they'll just file bankruptcy. How about guitars? Nope, might harm a tree. Passenger jets? Not in South Carolina.

What do we have left? Ah yes, unions. Let's invest in unions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What do we have left? Ah yes, unions. Let's invest in unions.

---

Hello Steve:

Stop being snarky! They'll close this thread too. What do YOU think our next big industry should be?? Unless, you think they're going to reopen that refrigerator plant down the road... We're in a NEW era. Ideas?? (Don't say fire extinguishers)

excon

LOL, if we have to worry about them closing threads for being snarky then AMHD is hopeless.

First let me correct something, demand isn't created by putting cash in our pockets. Well, to those who have no concept of finances it might create some demand, but if you put cash in my pockets I'm gong to pay some bills. How much did we spend on "stimulus" and how much demand did it create?

Nor is demand is created by mandate or wishful thinking i.e. "green jobs" (see Solyndra). Demand is created by offering a service or product that people need or really want. I don't NEED compact fluorescent bulbs nor do I want them. I don't need an electric or hybrid car and I can't picture people around here trying to pull a horse trailer with a Chevy Volt. I may want solar panels but I don't need them or the cost associated.

I don't know what the next big thing will be but you can't just put more government dollars in people's hands and hope for the best. People are still tightening down and hanging on to their money precisely because of the uncertainty of the economy. More expensive wishful thinking by the feds is not going to change that.

Hello again, Steve:

Investment is one thing. Stimulus is another we need BOTH. I opt for space. I mean we got lots of NASA unemployed rocket scientists... We got those unused launching pads..

Hey... Want to go into business with me... We could use fire extinguishers as rocket motors to save money. You got an in there... How about it?

excon

Your garden variety extinguisher only holds 195 psi charge and makes a terrible mess. We could bump it up to CO2 which could be around 850 psi, but that would be a climate disaster. Either would take a lot of extinguishers so you might bump up production slightly. But hey, as soon as all states adopt the latest NFPA standard my industry (and the scrap metal industry) will see a boost because we won't be able to service anything made before 1984.

Regulations are a pain but in our case they do help us stay in business... while driving up the price of everything from food to gas to those plastic baggies you store weed in.

Business people don't care about regulations or taxes. They care about money. They don't care about people and jobs. They care about money. They aren't creating jobs, because they are making money.

Its crazy believing they want anything but more money. Calling a business man a job creator is crazy, since they want to make money whether you do or not, and with or without you, whatever is cheaper.

If they need a few more bucks, then you get laid off. Ever notice that stocks go up when workers get canned?? Wonder why that is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

If they need a few more bucks, then you get laid off. Ever notice that stocks go up when workers get canned???

---

That's why Bank of America is laying off 30,000 employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

That's why Bank of America is laying off 30,000 employees.

---

Good example, they have to raise some attorney fees quick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

Stop being snarky! They'll close this thread too. What do YOU think our next big industry should be??? Unless, you think they're gonna reopen that refrigerator plant down the road... We're in a NEW era. Ideas??? (Don't say fire extinguishers)

excon

---

Just my opinion. If you could kep the enviromentalists away and get a mass of land in the desert. You could start an algae farm. They look fairly proising and you can create bio fuel from it. Imagine what you could do with a few square miles of it growing.

Just in case you never heard of the idea before.

Algae and Energy Independence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Business people don't care about regulations or taxes. They care about money. They don't care about people and jobs. They care about money. They aren't creating jobs, because they are making money.

Its crazy believing they want anything but more money. calling a business man a job creator is crazy, since they want to make money whether you do or not, and with or without you, whatever is cheaper.

If they need a few more bucks, then you get laid off. Ever notice that stocks go up when workers get canned??? Wonder why that is??

---

Isn't the entire purpose of a job... and a business... to make money and a profit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Isn't the entire purpose of a job....and a business........to make money and a profit?

---

But not to create more jobs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Isn't the entire purpose of a job....and a business........to make money and a profit?

---

Yes it is, but to rely on them or even pass them off as job creators is a fallacy and no excuse to cater to them as something other than what they are.

Hell they have had tax breaks and loopholes and a free ride for over 10 years and haven't created jobs for all the profits they have made. Hey just keep it real, job creators my arse. Profit makers is what they are and what they will be no matter who gets paid.

Just ask your boss why YOU are there.

Answer, to make him money>

Stop making him money, and you are out of there with a quickness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

But not to create more jobs?

---

If you don't make money and a profit... you can't hire more workers to make more money and profit. Unless they are willing to work free until there is a profit to pay their wages from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Yes it is, but to rely on them or even pass them off as job creators is a fallacy and no excuse to cater to them as something other than what they are.

Hell they have had tax breaks and loopholes and a free ride for over 10 years and haven't created jobs for all the profits they have made. hey just keep it real, job creators my arse. Profit makers is what they are and what they will be no matter who gets paid.

Just ask your boss why YOU are there.

Answer, to make him money>

Stop making him money, and you are out of there with a quickness.

---

Its falacy? How many jobs are project dwellers and welfare rats creating? How many jobs are the people that pay no federal taxes now thanks to tax breaks and deductions creating. The answer is simple... NONE. They aren't the job creators... they are the leaches on society.

You get kicked out of your job, and you will be a leach on society too.

Poverty is the problem, not the people in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You get kicked out of your job, and you will be a leach on society too.

Poverty is the problem, not the people in it.

---

SO... the lazy bums in the projects with a dozen kids from as many women and men that never worked a job in their life or finished high school are looked up to in the liberal world ?

What excuse exactly is sufficient to quitting high school? Besides cutting into the dope dealing time at night?

Dealing dope is a full time paying job, and a part of the underground economy. Its been that way for centuries, in many cultures, and governments.

I don't have to agree with it to acknowledge its existence. You didn't answer my question, what would you do with no job??

And a new one, what would you do about the poor folks? And don't say shoot 'em.

You are dodging MY point and trying to deflect the fact I commented on people that specifically made the lifestyle choices to be project dwellers. By dropping out of high school because it impacted their desire to sleep in and not break a sweat.

The temporarily unemployed have NOTHING in common with the chronically lazy high school dropouts. The former will be back to work shortly after Obama gets his butt whooped the next election... the latter will still be doing what they always did.

You are dodging my question.

New report cites 'regulatory tsunami' under Obama

Quote:

---

The number and scope of federal regulations, along with the costs of those regulations and the number of federal regulators, are all growing despite an executive order from President Obama that was touted as a measure to curb over-regulation, according to a new report by the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee.

The report says the Obama administration has "imposed 75 new major regulations costing more than $380 billion over ten years." In addition, the report says there are 219 more "economically significant regulations" in the works which will cost businesses $100 million or more each year -- for a minimum cost of $21 billion over ten years. The number of pages in the Federal Register, in which such rules are recorded, is increasing rapidly, the report says, and "pages devoted to final rules rose by 20 percent between 2009 and 2010, and proposed rules have increased from 2,044 in 2009 to 2,439 in 2010."

"The Obama administration has created a regulatory environment that is suffocating America's entrepreneurs' ability to create jobs and grow business," writes committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, Republican from California. "The result has been a regulatory tsunami that has stifled productivity, wages, job creation and economic growth."

---

Just sayin'

I would have to see the regulations before I took Darrel Issas word for it.

Regulations.gov

Fouling the Air at TXI

There is regulation, then there is regulation. How soon we forget the BP oil spill, or the battery plant in Plano, Texas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You are dodging my question.

---

I answered it... read what I wrote again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I would have to see the regulations before I took Darrel Issas word for it.

Regulations.gov

Fouling the Air at TXI

There is regulation, then there is regulation. How soon we forget the BP oil spill, or the battery plant in Plano, Texas.

---

You do realize it is not just a bunch of Republicans on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform? Did the Dems sign off on the report, too?

Hello Steve:

Regulations AREN'T a partisan issue. Rules work for right wingers too. Or, maybe they don't. Nobody has answered my earlier question, so I thought I'd ask it again...

Obviously, right wingers don't like regulations/rules for business. They say that businessmen have an INCENTIVE NOT to poison somebody, because they'd go out of business if they did, so they don't need no stinkin regulations about poisoning people... Sheesh... What is it about business that these pinko liberals don't understand??

But, when it comes to personal behavior, you seem to lose your faith that PEOPLE will act in themselves interest... So, you enact LOTS and LOTS of regulations/laws governing personal behavior and enforce them with vigor...

Now this is where my confusion comes in... Seems to me, that PEOPLE are running corporations, aren't they?

excon

And you keep throwing up that straw man that I believe regulations are inherently evil for corporations. No, there has to be rules. But I think we both agreed that trying to discern and comply with government regulations is burdensome enough, now we have 20 percent more incomprehensible nonsense to deal with? Not good, unless you're a lawyer, an accountant or government employee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

But I think we both agreed that trying to discern and comply with government regulations is burdensome enough

---

Hello again, Steve:

True... But, we need to discern WHO is telling us that too. It SHOULDN'T be that way. But, political objectives get in the way of good governance... For example, some on your side with to do away with the EPA. You might even be one of those.. I don't know.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

True... But, we need to discern WHO is telling us that too. It SHOULDN'T be that way. But, political objectives get in the way of good governance... For example, some on your side with to do away with the EPA. You might even be one of those.. I dunno.

---

Contrary to your often mistaken opinion, I don't like trash in my air. Or in my water, my yard or flying in my trees. But you do know the EPA has turned one of our most productive agricultural areas into a desert because of some stinkin' little fish don't you?

All I know is that I'd hate to be a small business owner trying to get the credit necessary for day to day operations ;let alone expansion.
The European banking crisis prolongs the problems that began with the unwise bailout of the "banks too big to fail ".

President Obama is correct in saying (ad nausium) that he did not cause this freezing of capital . But his policy of printing money and giving it away to prop up states budgets and "save" state jobs was a complete failure ;which he foolishly plans on duplicating .

Regulations ? No... it's excess regulations that are a problem . The way I see it in my industry is that the more burdensome regulation get , there is ,the more consolidation of the industry into fewer hands. My bosses rented a modest factory and worked it with their families. With today's rules that is an impossibilty .I will never have the opportunity to open a shop the way they did.