Democrat Congress to Kill Approx. 300,000 MORE Jobs Beginning July 24 State, National, International, posted by Jerry, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jul 13, 2009 at 4:59 pm
The list goes on an on from the Democrat job destruction machine. Killing an estimated million plus jobs from their Cap and Trade legislation, their over-regulation (i.e. CAFE standards) of the auto industry which effectively killed GM and Chrysler, their cutback in national defense and their plans to nationalize healthcare, and the LACK of job stimulation from their "Stimulation Package", next week the news will be more of the same.
In a few days on July 24, the program WRITTEN and WORSHIPPED by the Democrats ... MINIMUM WAGE...is scheduled for another increase. The minimum wage will increase from $6.55 per hour by 70 cents to $7.25 per hour. Minimum wage sounds like a good program, right? It has terribly negative (intended or unintended) economic consequences.
According to today's Wall St. Journal, (Monday, July 13, 2009 on page A12) economist David Neumark of the Univ. of Calif. at Irvine calculates that this minimum wage hike will kill "about 300,000 jobs for those between the ages of 16-24. Further, "Single working mothers would also be among those most hurt."
I am convinced that Democrats -- especially Obama -- do NOT want this economy to rebound. If they did, they would have instituted proven strategies such as tax reductions, selectively lowering certain regulations in various industries and other programs which stimulate the economy. Plus their Stimulus Package would have been directed much differently if "job creation" was the Democrats' primary goal.
If you are a small business owner, especially, do you have that extra 70 cents per hour to pay your entry level employees? That equates to about $1,456 per year based on a 2080 hour/year..not including any benefits.
As mentioned, the Democrat job destruction machine (which our Representative Congressman Jerry McNerney is a glowing example) is humming along.
Posted by Love Palin, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 13, 2009 at 9:31 pm
"lowering certain regulations in various industries"
Unfortunately, that is what got us in to the current trouble. De-regulation that effectively legalized credit default swaps allowed companies like AIG, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers to sell the derivatives that ultimately brought them down. That led directly to the worst credit crisis since the great depression and a greater than 50% drop in the stock market. That resulted in the destruction of millions of jobs (not just hundreds of thousands). Republicans like Phil Gramm championed this deregulation.
The Obama administration is taking steps now to regulate the market for many derivatives (including credit default swaps). These steps will help curb the abuses that took place previously. This will help provide the stability for a sustainable recovery and job growth.
The current economic crisis was not created by excessive taxation, burdensome government regulation, or powerful labor unions. It was created by reckless deregulation combined with unsustainable monetary policy.
Unfortunately, Republicans in the Bush administration chose to respond to the crisis by bailing out their friends on Wall Street using $750 Billion in tax money and trying to insist that no strings be attached to the give away. McCain and Palin wouldn't disavow this decision and they lost.
Posted by JK, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 13, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Before there could be credit swaps, there had to be mortgages to chop. Let's start with the social engineering that some meddlers tampered with. The crooks at ACORN that worked with Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Dodd, Franklin Raines, Fannie & Freddie and ACORN threatening bankers to grant loans to the 'poor'.....like everybody is suppose to be entitled to a house. Well,it doesn't work that way.
Remember Pelosi's ALL-Dem Congress was in TOTOAL control for 2+ yrs BEFORE the election. Obama inherited his own financial team. I saw the video of Repub. congresspeople pleading with the B Frank, M Waters team about the dangers that were building at Fannie. B Frank was slobbering all over himself spitting out "safey is not an issue", "safety is not an issue". Well, yes, Barney safety WAS & is an issue !! On their committee video, Maxine chimed in ""why Franklin Raines should be praised for all he's doing. He's allowing people to have homes who WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET THEM OTHERWISE """. THAT explains it all. They were playing god, trying to alter (cheat)the system. Those committee members KNEW the ramifications of having Fannie/Freddie out on the limb on those bad loans. When are ACORN & those MOUTHY, LIEin Congreepeople going to pay. First, there had to be those piles of mortgages, before they could BE stacked & chopped, & insured. Now Blabbing Barney isn't blabbing as much these days. But it seems a bit ridiculous to think HE's going to be the one now to FIX the problem ?? NOT ! Why aren't his committee members taking action against him??? These are the arrogant KNOW-NOTHING politicians running Congress. Now they're trying to guesstimate how & how much for creating an all new socialized medical system.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Jul 13, 2009 at 11:01 pm
You seem to at least have an interest to find the bottomline source of the problem. However I submit to you that you are looking in the wrong place and reading inaccurate opinions.
Not only was there was little deregulation of financial services during the Bush years, but most of the regulatory reforms achieved in earlier years mitigated, rather than contributed to, the crisis.
The major problem was too much government intervention into the free market. During the disastrous Carter years the program establishing subprime loans was developed. Then Clinton expanded that program exponentially...actually forcing banks to give subprime mortage loans to those who otherwise should not have qualified. Then Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew even more thanks to Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Obama himself and the rest is history. If the Federal government would have not intervened in the free market, we would not have seen a crisis with this magnitude.
Posted by Angela, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 13, 2009 at 11:16 pm
If Obama was really interested in improving the economy and creating jobs, he would at least postpone the minimum wage hike scheduled for July 24th. It is widely known that this hike will destroy jobs and is a terrible program to implement during an economic recession.
For those people who believe that Obama or any Democrat...like McNerney, is actually interested in improving our economy, please do your homework and connect the dots ... before it is too late.
Posted by J, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 12:39 pm
And here I was attributing the demise of GM and Chrysler to poor sales and poor management of assets... Silly me
"If you are a small business owner, especially, do you have that extra 70 cents per hour to pay your entry level employees? That equates to about $1,456 per year based on a 2080 hour/year..not including any benefits."
Last time I checked, the majority of people working minimum wage jobs were not full-time employees working an 80hr week. They were students & those struggling to get by on what little they could earn without a college degree. They also received nothing in the way of benefits from that part-time job. You will have to forgive me if I do not begrudge them that 70 cents an hour
Posted by Love Palin, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 14, 2009 at 9:30 pm
That article got many items wrong and over-simplified.
"Among these were "credit default swaps," which have played a role in this year's meltdown. Whether this law constituted "deregulation" is not clear, since the pre-legislation status of these instruments was uncertain. "
Companies weren't writing them because they correctly assumed that these weren't insurance, but side bets, banned by many states' "bucket shop" laws.
The statement in the article was presented as fact, with nothing to back it up. It is typical of articles written by apologists for de-regulation, long on fluff. Short on facts.
"In the nine years since that legislation--including the eight years of the Bush presidency--Congress has enacted no further legislation easing burdens financial services industry."
Sounds like the author has never heard of the "uptick rule", passed in 1938, and eliminated by the SEC on June 6, 2007. OK, so if the administration itself does the deregulation, not congress, then it is OK somehow?
"Yet it is amazing how well the market for credit default swaps has functioned during the financial crisis. That market has never lost liquidity and the default rate has been low, given the general state of the underlying assets."
The market was functioning so well because we, the tax payers bailed out AIG, Bear Stearns and others. They didn't have the assets to pay off their swaps.
Then there is the bit about Fannie and Freddie. The Bush administration leading a (failed) heroic charge against a ... Republican controlled congress ... to reign in Fannie and Freddie. Too many REPUBLICANS wanted to keep the status quo at Fannie, and the reforms got defeated. That was in 2003 and 2005. Republicans were in control. On top of that, sub-prime itself was small compared to the derivatives written against it.
" ... ACORN threatening bankers to grant loans ..."
But AIG, the largest recipient of TARP funds, didn't even hold mortgage assets, just side bets (derivatives) written against them. That is what brought the big ones down.
" ... like everybody is suppose to be entitled to a house ... "
But that's what the Bush administration was saying. Just ask Alphonso Jackson:
"I believe every family deserves to live in stable, safe housing in vibrant communities."
Posted by J, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2009 at 9:42 am
Will the congressmen be asked to let any of their support staff go? Perhaps use student interns rather then have a full-time admin? Or (gasp) share a admin amoung a group?
Or will this simply be a cut of teachers, public service employees, and the trades people? Won't this result in those people having to work overtime to complete the work needed to keep things rolling smoothly?
Posted by Parent of Two, a resident of the Val Vista neighborhood, on Jul 15, 2009 at 11:18 am Parent of Two is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Bush screwed up by being too weak and ineffectual to prevent Congress from bolstering the Community Reinvestment Act, which basically forced the banks to give loans to unqualified applicants. Coincidentally, those unqualified applicants tend to vote Democratic. Bush also screwed up by not shutting Fannie and Freddie down, and allowing the housing/credit problem to explode rather than just fester.
Bush was a bad leader. But Congress shares the blame for the economy. Interesting how all those Congresspeople got re-elected while the Presidency changed parties. I can understand people hate Bush (incompetent), but they need to wake up and boot their (corrupt) Congressmen too.
Allen- I'm very clear on what my question is, but thanks for the condescension
When they travel between districts they represent and their federal offices, does the staff left behind work full time? Do they maintain a full-time staff at both offices? Seems to me the furloughs imposed on other employees should apply to them as well. I would like to know if it does. My guess it that it does not. I will also venture the guess that these staffs, do not make minimum wage