AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Quote:

Companies bleed jobs, service slump slows
By Burton Frierson Burton Frierson 55 mins ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) " The U.S. economy is hemorrhaging jobs and may not stop bleeding for at least another year, even if the government acts quickly to stimulate the economy, according to reports released on Wednesday.

The U.S. private sector cut more than half a million jobs in January, ADP Employer Services said, and other data showed planned layoffs at U.S. firms reached their highest monthly level in seven years during the month.

The reports come ahead of the government's more comprehensive non-farm payrolls data, which is due on Friday and expected to paint a similarly bleak picture.

The service sector, which represents about 80 percent of U.S. economic activity, contracted at a less severe rate in January than the previous month, but the job outlook in this key area of the economy remained grim, according to the Institute for Supply Management.

While the reports were slightly stronger than many economists expected, they said even the $900 billion economic stimulus bill being debated by lawmakers will only soften the pain of the downturn.

"It's too late at this point to prevent a fairly significant further rise in the unemployment rate," said Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, which jointly developed the ADP report.

"And all that the stimulus can do is to limit how high the unemployment rate will go in this cycle," said Prakken, who was speaking to journalists during a teleconference.

The longer congress delays the stimulus package, the worse it will get for more Americans. It's very difficult to impossible to recoup jobs once they are lost.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The primary causers of the CEO investment mistakes are the Congress. Congress created, maintained, and is now trying to stupidly and illegally rescue the public company Fanny & Freddy from bankruptsy. Congress is also trying to stupidly and illegally rescue private companies that sought/seek to profit from the alleged rescue of Fanny & Freddie from bankruptsy. CEOs were too easily seduced by Congress into trying to profit from all those Congressional mistakes.

Either the Congress terminates all their stupid and illegal, alleged rescues, or America will collapse into a socialist dictatorship. If Congress terminates their stupid and illegal, alleged rescues, then either the current CEOs will have to earn their salaries by managing the legal rescue of their companies, or they must be replaced. It's a lot easier for companies to replace CEOs than for American voters to replace the liberals, Rinos, and Cinos in the current Congress.

I think this post shows a complete and total lack of understanding as to the causes, effects, and logic behind our current financial crisis. This is literally the worst explanation that I have ever seen for this issue and I doubt you meant it seriously.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

ican's post doesn't rely on logic nor facts; he always relies only on repetition with the hope that some people will believe it as the truth.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

The following ,(3) and (4), are some ideas that too many CALOPs allegedly support:

(3) A progressive tax system;

A progressive or graduated income tax system is illegal. It is illegal to vary income tax rates according to the number of dollars of income earned by individuals or groups of individuals. Such a tax system is a violation of the "supreme law of the land": the Constitution of the USA as amended.

Quote:

Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Definition of imposts

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
Main Entry: 1im·post
Function: noun
...
1 : something imposed or levied : TAX, TRIBUTE, DUTY
2 : the weight carried by a horse in a handicap race

Definition of uniform

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8
Main Entry: 1uni·form
...
Function: adjective
...
1 : marked by lack of variation, diversity, change in form, manner, worth, or degree : showing a single form, degree, or character in all occurrences or manifestations ...
2 : marked by complete conformity to a rule or pattern or by similarity in salient detail or practice : CONSONANT, ALIKE ...
3 : marked by unvaried and changeless appearance (as of surface, color, or pattern) ...
4 : consistent in conduct, character, or effect : lacking in variation, deviation, or unequal or dissimilar operation ...

(4) The right to health care; public leadership in the creation of a health care system of universal coverage supported by taxes;

No where in the Constitution of the USA as amended, is there a granting of the power to the Congress to establish a federal system of health care, or establish a federal system of universal coverage by taxes. More generally, there is nothing in the Constiitution granting the government the power to give federal money to private individuals or organizations to purchase anything. The exercise of such powers by the Congress is a violation of the "supreme law of the land". It is illegal.

Quote:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Hey, ican, you'd better get all those in congress who failed their constitutional authority concerning tax rates. ROFL

1 Reply

Cycloptichorn and cicerone imposter, you repeatedly make accusations you fail to support with facts or logic. I suspect that you think your credentials--whatever they may be-- establish you to be infallible perveyors of opinions. But actually your unsubstantiated opinions are nothing better than unsubstantiated opinions.

Cyclo, Cice, for your opinions to have credibility, you must provide logical arguments to show why you think your opinions are worthy of consideration. Continuing failure to do this, makes you look like damn fools, worthy only of being laughed at.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

WHY should I be the only one to "get all those in congress who failed their constitutional authority concerning tax rates"?

It's your country too, Cice! ........ ROFL!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican, The BIG difference is, I believe congress have done their jobs. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has averaged about 18% for most years. I think that is reasonable. The only problem we have is not tax revenue, but spending; that's where both democrats and republicans have failed our country.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn and cicerone imposter, you repeatedly make accusations you fail to support with facts or logic. I suspect that you think your credentials--whatever they may be-- establish you to be infallible perveyors of opinions. But actually your unsubstantiated opinions are nothing better than unsubstantiated opinions.

Cyclo, Cice, for your opinions to have credibility, you must provide logical arguments to show why you think your opinions are worthy of consideration. Continuing failure to do this, makes you look like damn fools, worthy only of being laughed at.

Let's start planing away your idiocy.

Quote:

The primary causers of the CEO investment mistakes are the Congress.

This is 100% incorrect. Congress was not responsible for the business decisions of any CEO or Investment banker. They create a set of conditions that the investors must operate in, but they don't control or direct how they should invest.

Therefore, the burden lies upon the companies themselves to decide the best course forward. Blaming Congress for the mistakes of private investors is farcical and you have no evidence showing a causal link at all.

Why should your argument be taken seriously? It's a joke, no facts to back it up, just blaming government.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The primary causers of the CEO investment mistakes are the Congress. Congress created, maintained, and is now trying to stupidly and illegally rescue the public company Fanny & Freddy from bankruptsy. Congress is also trying to stupidly and illegally rescue private companies that sought/seek to profit from the alleged rescue of Fanny & Freddie from bankruptsy. CEOs were too easily seduced by Congress into trying to profit from all those Congressional mistakes.

Either the Congress terminates all their stupid and illegal, alleged rescues, or America will collapse into a socialist dictatorship. If Congress terminates their stupid and illegal, alleged rescues, then either the current CEOs will have to earn their salaries by managing the legal rescue of their companies, or they must be replaced. It's a lot easier for companies to replace CEOs than for American voters to replace the liberals, Rinos, and Cinos in the current Congress.

I'm not sure that government loans are illegal if they can be framed within the broad concept of promoting the common welfare and as long as the taxpayer gets a decent return for their risk. I think it is or should be illegal to risk the people's money without proper prudence, safeguards, and compensation.

However, I just made a round trip to Santa Fe and listened to Mark Stein on the radio both going and coming. Your point was essentially his point that it really makes us feel good when PresBO says he is ordering a cap on executive salaries UNTIL bail out money is repaid with interest to the Federal government. But it does not put any money into the pockets of the rest of us, it does not stimulate the economy, and it prolongs the misery by delaying the natural market correction that will occur if the government does nothing.

The President's proposal soothes liberal class envy, but there are so many ways an executive can get around the ordered 'caps' that this is little more than window dressing. And, without some kind of mandatory note in place where the government can demand and enforce repayment, any unethical company can simply wait out the government who sooner or later will likely forgive (forget) the debt in return for campaign contributions or other support. This kind of fuzzy economics actually encourages incompetence and illegal activity. (Illegal immigration is fueled in much the same way.)

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican, Your posts not only fail the logical test, but your posts have close to zero credibility. When you talk about our posts lacking "logical arguments," you must show from "credible" sources why. Otherwise, all you're providing is hot air coming out of your arse.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

"...but there are so many ways an executive can get around the ordered 'caps' that this is little more than window dressing."

Okay, show us how those executives can get around those caps?
BTW, please share your knowledge on this issue with president Obama; I'm sure he and his administration would want to cover all bases, so that they will not abuse taxpayer's monies.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I especially enjoy Ican's treatises on constitutional law.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

ican, The BIG difference is, I believe congress have done their jobs. Tax revenue as a percentage of GDP has averaged about 18% for most years. I think that is reasonable. The only problem we have is not tax revenue, but spending; that's where both democrats and republicans have failed our country.

Brilliant post, ci, was this a typo when you posted this? The problem is spending, not sufficient taxes. But given that brilliant revelation, how can you say Congress has done its job? Congress has failed miserably.

0 Replies

Executives can get around ordered caps by tapping subsidiaries, deferring payment until the government gives up, routing extra compensation to others who effectively 'launder it' before it is routed back to the exec, or simply cooking the books. Nobody gets to top management in a mega corporation without having all sorts of 'connections' at his/her disposal any more than a politician gets to the top of the heap without having all sorts of 'connections'. You can be sure that President Obama is quite aware of that.

This is not to suggest that all top executives are dishonest or unethical because the vast majority are not. Those who are not will accept the caps and they will repay their loans if they are able. One shining example of that was when the government loaned 1.2 billion to a foundering Chrysler in 1979. The loan stablized the company who went on to build the popular K-cars and the loan was paid in full with interest within three years. The people got full value and compensation for the risk taken with their money.

Lee Iococca, the man who took over a bankrupt Chrysler in 1978 and negotiated both the loan and the turn around in the business is now encouraging the administration to not require resignation from the top administration of the auto companies now. Those at the respective helms did not create the current problems any more than Iococca created Chrysler's problems in the 70's. But they all have experience and know how that will be difficult to replace.

But he would disapprove of handing anybody a bank check drawn on the people's money and not expecting a reasonable return for that risk.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

How many of those are legal?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

This is not to suggest that all top executives are dishonest or unethical because the vast majority are not.

I'd love to know how you determined that, Foxfyre.

And because of the statement, I might ask: Do you feel that way about top governmental officials also?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Some of the restrictions imposed on pay and other benefits (I'm sure this is not a complete list as of today):

Quote:

Obama said that massive severance packages for executives who leave failing firms are also going to be eliminated. "We're taking the air out of golden parachutes," he said.

Other new requirements on "exceptional assistance" will include:

_The expansion to 20, from five, the number of executives who would face reduced bonuses and incentives if they are found to have knowingly provided inaccurate information related to company financial statements or performance measurements.

_An increase in the ban on golden parachutes from a firm's top five senior executives to its top 10. The next 25 would be prohibited from golden parachutes that exceed one year's compensation.

_A requirement that boards of directors adopt policies on spending such as corporate jets, renovations and entertainment.

The administration also will propose long-term compensation restrictions even for companies that don't receive government assistance, Obama said.

Those proposals include:

• Requiring top executives at financial institutions to hold stock for several years before they can cash out.

• Requiring nonbinding "say on pay" resolutions " that is, giving shareholders more say on executive compensation.

• A Treasury-sponsored conference on a long-term overhaul of executive compensation.

Top officials at companies that have received money from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program already face some compensation limits.

0 Replies

They're all legal unless fraud or racketeering can be proved.

And I am 100% opposed to government telling any business how to run its business. Government being one of the most inefficient and often ineffective entities ever invented certainly doesn't have any moral authority or authority based on track record to tell any business how to be a prosperous business. Government can say what is illegal re intentional violation of the unalienable legal, civil, Constitutional, or human rights of others, but in a free society, government should not otherwise have any say on how any business is structured internally.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

And I am 100% opposed to government telling any business how to run its business.

I'll say here what I said in the other thread: I did not realize that part of this whole deal was a provision that if the government offers bail-out money under these terms...the company IS REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THE BAIL-OUT!

The only fault I see with the program is this requirement.

If Obama had only allowed the companies to choose whether or not to accept the money under those terms...

...all this haggling could have been avoided.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know