Because the economy is in terrible shape (thanks in no small part to Wall Street).
I agree that Washington is accountable as well. No argument there.[/quote]
Okay. Did you support the passage of either (1) ObamaCare or (2) the Dodd-Frank bill?
And we are several years removed from the credit crisis, market meltdown, TARP, etc. - what exactly is Wall Street doing now (and for the last several years) that has prevented the economy from recovering?
I mean, I get the anger of several years ago - the bailouts, etc. I really do. I’m not happy with them either (I am also a realist). But, the economy has had a chance to recover since then, and I truly want to know what Wall Street is doing to stall the recovery.
If that is what all these hipsters are mad about, no problem - just show me some evidence that Wall Street is causing the misery at issue.
Because the economy is in the shitter and Business will not support more employees[/quote]
Businesses will support more employees, they just won’t spend the money right now. This is the perfect time to add some employees and expand - there is a glut of qualified, experienced people in the labor pool, and business have tons of cash on hand.
But businesses are refusing to do so. Have you bothered to ask why this is?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And we are several years removed from the credit crisis, market meltdown, TARP, etc. - what exactly is Wall Street doing now (and for the last several years) that has prevented the economy from recovering?
I mean, I get the anger of several years ago - the bailouts, etc. I really do. I’m not happy with them either (I am also a realist). But, the economy has had a chance to recover since then, and I truly want to know what Wall Street is doing to stall the recovery.[/quote]
If Wall Street was responsible for the damage, shouldn’t the question be “What has Wall Street done to fix the damage they caused?” instead of “What have they done to prevent recovery?”
If Wall Street was responsible for the damage, shouldn’t the question be “What has Wall Street done to fix the damage they caused?” instead of “What have they done to prevent recovery?”[/quote]
Well, I don’t think Wall Street all by its lonesome is responsible for the damage. You also have another problem by fingering an amorphous “Wall Street” - certain banks? Certain individuals?
But whatever level Wall Street is responsible for, what exactly should Wall Street do to fix that damage? Wall Street firms can’t do anything about unemployment, can they? Other than hire Wall Streeter-types, which would be a very narrow class of financial professionals?
Seriously, I’m all ears. What can Wall Street to do to “cure” the unemployment they helped cause?
Because the economy is in the shitter and Business will not support more employees[/quote]
Businesses will support more employees, they just won’t spend the money right now. This is the perfect time to add some employees and expand - there is a glut of qualified, experienced people in the labor pool, and business have tons of cash on hand.
If Wall Street was responsible for the damage, shouldn’t the question be “What has Wall Street done to fix the damage they caused?” instead of “What have they done to prevent recovery?”[/quote]
And just to follow up, no, this isn’t a better question that “what have they done to prevent recovery?” Economies are not machines that still waiting for levers to be pulled, and they tend to auto-correct in the right environment. People want to work, and employers want to be in an environment where they can hire these people. The interests are aligned, and the best question is what is standing in the way of these mutual interests.
If Wall Street was responsible for the damage, shouldn’t the question be “What has Wall Street done to fix the damage they caused?” instead of “What have they done to prevent recovery?”[/quote]
Well, I don’t think Wall Street all by its lonesome is responsible for the damage. You also have another problem by fingering an amorphous “Wall Street” - certain banks? Certain individuals?
But whatever level Wall Street is responsible for, what exactly should Wall Street do to fix that damage? Wall Street firms can’t do anything about unemployment, can they? Other than hire Wall Streeter-types, which would be a very narrow class of financial professionals?
Seriously, I’m all ears. What can Wall Street to do to “cure” the unemployment they helped cause?[/quote]
I don’t know, honestly.
Why do you think it is that employers aren’t hiring?
Why do you think it is that employers aren’t hiring?[/quote]
I already mentioned it above: businesses are incredibly uncertain about the future. They are expecting a tidal wave of regulations (and costs) from ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, they are expecting massive tax increases, and they are expecting inflation or deflation (depends on who you ask, but they don’t care for either).
They are also very unhappy with the arbitrariness of policy over the last 3 years. Businesspeople like calm and predictable, not “revolutionary”.
Businesses have a ton of cash - they are cash-hoarding. When people hoard, why are they hoarding? They are expecting a storm and fear depletion of their stuff.
I can find ten reasons to dislike Wall Street right now - but nothing Wall Street is (or isn’t) doing is causing the problems that are making businesses so nervous about adding labor or capital.
Why do you think it is that employers aren’t hiring?[/quote]
I already mentioned it above: businesses are incredibly uncertain about the future. They are expecting a tidal wave of regulations (and costs) from ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, they are expecting massive tax increases, and they are expecting inflation or deflation (depends on who you ask, but they don’t care for either).
They are also very unhappy with the arbitrariness of policy over the last 3 years. Businesspeople like calm and predictable, not “revolutionary”.
Businesses have a ton of cash - they are cash-hoarding. When people hoard, why are they hoarding? They are expecting a storm and fear depletion of their stuff.
I can find ten reasons to dislike Wall Street right now - but nothing Wall Street is (or isn’t) doing is causing the problems that are making businesses so nervous about adding labor or capital.
[/quote]
Repeal ObamaCare. Replace it with a system whereby insurance is no longer employer-based.
Repeal and replace Dodd-Frank. Replace it with a bill that actually busts up the banks and eliminates the foundation for “too big to fail”.
Eliminate the Fed’s mandate to maintain high employment and help get rid of artificially low interest rates.
Lower the corporate tax rate. Raise the capital gains rate.
Expand domestic energy production in ready-now (and close to ready-now) energy sectors.
Cancel whatever remains of the stimulus. Use actual funding for legitimate infrastructure projects - legitimate being the key word: truly with some impact on the national economy (not a nice bridge in the middle of nowhere), and no more speculating with taxpayer’s money.
Begin a slow process to adopting something like Bowles-Simpson. Major reform of entitlements (shrink them generally, means-test them, etc.) and major tax-raises (mostly closing loopholes) to cover the differences and close up deficits are on the table. This would be punted down the road just a tick, but addressing the uncertainties of our unfunded liabilities to give businesses reason to exhale.
Cut 10% of the funding for administrative agencies. On that note, conduct a (real) adut of regulations and clean house on waste and redundancy.
Repeal ObamaCare. Replace it with a system whereby insurance is no longer employer-based.
Repeal and replace Dodd-Frank. Replace it with a bill that actually busts up the banks and eliminates the foundation for “too big to fail”.
Eliminate the Fed’s mandate to maintain high employment and help get rid of artificially low interest rates.
Lower the corporate tax rate. Raise the capital gains rate.
Expand domestic energy production in ready-now (and close to ready-now) energy sectors.
Cancel whatever remains of the stimulus. Use actual funding for legitimate infrastructure projects - legitimate being the key word: truly with some impact on the national economy (not a nice bridge in the middle of nowhere), and no more speculating with taxpayer’s money.
Begin a slow process to adopting something like Bowles-Simpson. Major reform of entitlements (shrink them generally, means-test them, etc.) and major tax-raises (mostly closing loopholes) to cover the differences and close up deficits are on the table. This would be punted down the road just a tick, but addressing the uncertainties of our unfunded liabilities to give businesses reason to exhale.
Cut 10% of the funding for administrative agencies. On that note, conduct a (real) adut of regulations and clean house on waste and redundancy.
That’s my warm-up.[/quote]
Oh yes, meant to add:
Broaden the tax base and flatten (somewhat) the rates. Make sure almost everyone pays something into the kitty.
Repeal ObamaCare. Replace it with a system whereby insurance is no longer employer-based.
Repeal and replace Dodd-Frank. Replace it with a bill that actually busts up the banks and eliminates the foundation for “too big to fail”.
Eliminate the Fed’s mandate to maintain high employment and help get rid of artificially low interest rates.
Lower the corporate tax rate. Raise the capital gains rate.
Expand domestic energy production in ready-now (and close to ready-now) energy sectors.
Cancel whatever remains of the stimulus. Use actual funding for legitimate infrastructure projects - legitimate being the key word: truly with some impact on the national economy (not a nice bridge in the middle of nowhere), and no more speculating with taxpayer’s money.
Begin a slow process to adopting something like Bowles-Simpson. Major reform of entitlements (shrink them generally, means-test them, etc.) and major tax-raises (mostly closing loopholes) to cover the differences and close up deficits are on the table. This would be punted down the road just a tick, but addressing the uncertainties of our unfunded liabilities to give businesses reason to exhale.
Cut 10% of the funding for administrative agencies. On that note, conduct a (real) adut of regulations and clean house on waste and redundancy.
That’s my warm-up.[/quote]
you speak a lot of sense. I do support the idea of free healthcare for all IF IT IS DONE WELL but Obama’s version of it is a monstrosity.
[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:
Chicago Board of Trade[/quote]
Saw this ABC story about that. Within, I found this humorous.
[i]In the 5th week of the Occupy Wall St. movement, with protests now having spread now to 150 U.S. cities and even to Europe, the apparent objects of that protest–the richest 1 percent–are starting to push back.
The grumbling from the wealthy took off with a sign posted in the windows of the Chicago Board of Trade last week, in a place where street protesters easily could see it, which proclaimed: “We Are The 1%.”
No one is sure who put up the sign, but plenty of folks in the building could be included in the 1 percent.
If a joke, it was one many protesters didn’t get. “I thought [the sign] was extremely disrespectful,” a special education teacher named Corey, 35, told TimeOut Chicago. Mike Polski, 53, from Joliet, disagreed, telling TimeOut, “These people wish they were the 1 percent! The 1 percent are billionaires.”
He’s wrong. According to IRS tax data, anybody earning $380,354 or more qualifies for membership in the top 1 percent. That would include some of the better-paid traders at the Board of Trade. (IRS data shows, too, that the top 1 percent holds 35.6 percent of the nation’s wealth, not the 50 percent claimed by Occupiers.)[/i] http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-wall-street-protests-rankle-rich-193928054.html
Yikes. You might want to know WHO you’re protesting against.
I would hate to ruin anyone’s preconceived notions of those involved in the “Occupy” protests, but from what I know and have been told by a friend who helped organize the Occupy Boston protest, there are people from all walks of life and of all political backgrounds. Far from a bunch of stupid hippies that need to get a job.
Not that it fucking matters, but I figure if some of you wonderful individuals are going to criticize the protests, at least realize who you are making fun of.
you speak a lot of sense. I do support the idea of free healthcare for all IF IT IS DONE WELL but Obama’s version of it is a monstrosity.[/quote]
Well, I hate to beat a dead horse, but there is absolutely no such thing as free health care. “Free” health care is just wealth redistribution, a transfer payment that is something other than cash.
I don’t support laissez-faire in this context, and I think policy-wise there is space to help people with pre-existing conditions. But step one is (and should have been) to attack the costs of health care. Once you actually make health care affordable and get the costs down, more people will sign up sooner and more consistently. The result of that is fewer people will be caught without health insurance who then develop an uninsurable condition. Then, with a smaller pool of uninsurable people with pre-existing conditions, the policy problem and solutions for the quandry of pre-existing conditions are much more manageable and won’t threaten to break the bank.
As for the OWS crowd - would they be willing to give up their iPhone and data plan to pay for some health insurance? Of course not! The OWS crowd doesn’t care for hard choices - they want easy solutions, and ask that you and I pay for it.