'Job-Killing' Gov. Spending = crazy idea
Options
allreasoned_out
Members Posts: 2,696 ✭✭
Where do people get the crazy idea from that Gov. spending actually reduces jobs? I read this article a couple weeks ago.
The GOP Myth of 'Job-Killing' Spending
By ALAN S. BLINDER
It was the British economist John Maynard Keynes who famously wrote that ideas, "both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else." Right now, I'm worried about the damage that might be done by one particularly wrong-headed idea: the notion that, in stark contrast to Keynes's teaching, government spending destroys jobs.
No, that's not a typo. House Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans regularly rail against "job-killing government spending." Think about that for a minute. The claim is that employment actually declines when federal spending rises. Using the same illogic, employment should soar if we made massive cuts in public spending—as some are advocating right now.
Acting on such a belief would imperil a still-shaky economy that is not generating nearly enough jobs. So let's ask: How, exactly, could more government spending "? jobs"?
It is easy, but irrelevant, to understand how someone might object to any particular item in the federal budget—whether it is the war in Afghanistan, ethanol subsidies, Social Security benefits, or building bridges to nowhere. But even building bridges to nowhere would create jobs, not destroy them, as the congressman from nowhere knows. To be sure, that is not a valid argument for building them. Dumb public spending deserves to be rejected—but not because it kills jobs.
The generic conservative view that government is "too big" in some abstract sense leads to a strong predisposition against spending. OK. But the question remains: How can the government destroy jobs by either hiring people directly or buying things from private companies? For example, how is it that public purchases of computers destroy jobs but private purchases of computers create them?
One possible answer is that the taxes necessary to pay for the government spending destroy more jobs than the spending creates. That's a logical possibility, although it would require extremely inept choices of how to spend the money and how to raise the revenue. But tax-financed spending is not what's at issue today. The current debate is about deficit spending: raising spending without raising taxes.
For example, the large fiscal stimulus enacted in 2009 was not "paid for." Yet it has been claimed that it created essentially no jobs. Really? With spending under the Recovery Act exceeding $600 billion (and tax cuts exceeding $200 billion), that would be quite a trick. How in the world could all that spending, accompanied by tax cuts, fail to raise employment? In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the stimulus's effect on employment in 2010 was at least 1.3 million net new jobs, and perhaps as many as 3.3 million.
A second job-destroying mechanism operates through higher interest rates. When the government borrows to finance spending, that pushes interest rates up, which dissuades some businesses from investing. Thus falling private investment destroys jobs just as rising government spending is creating them.
There are times when this "crowding-out" argument is relevant. But not today. The Federal Reserve has been holding interest rates at ultra-low levels for several years, and will continue to do so. If interest rates don't rise, you don't get crowding out.
In sum, you may view any particular public-spending program as wasteful, inefficient, leading to "big government" or objectionable on some other grounds. But if it's not financed with higher taxes, and if it doesn't drive up interest rates, it's hard to see how it can destroy jobs.
Let's try one final argument that is making the rounds today. Large deficits, it is claimed, are creating huge uncertainties (e.g., over what will eventually be done to reduce them) and those uncertainties are depressing business investment. The corollary is a variant of what my Princeton colleague Paul Krugman calls the Confidence Fairy: If you cut spending sharply, confidence will soar, spurring employment and investment.
As a matter of pure logic, that could be true. But is there evidence? Yes, clear evidence—that points in the opposite direction. Business investment in equipment and software has been booming, not sagging. Specifically, while real gross domestic product grew a paltry 2.3% over the last four quarters, business spending on equipment and software skyrocketed 14.7%. No doubt, there is lots of uncertainty. But investment is soaring anyway.
Despite all this evidence and logic, some people still claim that fiscal stimulus won't create jobs. Spending cuts, they insist, are the route to higher employment. And ideas have consequences. One possibly frightening consequence is that our limping economy might have one of its two crutches—fiscal policy—kicked out from under it in an orgy of premature expenditure cutting. Given the current jobs emergency, that would be tragic.
Yet it is undeniable that we have a tremendous long-run deficit problem to deal with—and the sooner, the better. So it appears we're caught in a dilemma: We need both more spending (or lower taxes) to create jobs and less spending (or higher taxes) to tame the deficit monster. Can we square the circle?
Actually, yes. Suppose we enacted a modest fiscal stimulus program specifically designed for maximum job creation. My personal favorite is a tax credit for firms that add to their payrolls, but there are other options. And suppose we combined that with a serious plan for reducing future deficits—and enacted the whole package now. Then we could, in a sense, have our cake and eat it, too.
A package like that is not fantasy. I believe that a bipartisan group of economists, if given the authority, free of political interference, would design some version of it. But that's not how budget decisions are, or should be, made. And as long as one political party clings to the idea that government spending kills jobs, it's hard to see how we extricate ourselves from this mess. As Keynes understood, ideas, whether right or wrong, have consequences.
Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303635604576392023187860688.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#
The GOP Myth of 'Job-Killing' Spending
By ALAN S. BLINDER
It was the British economist John Maynard Keynes who famously wrote that ideas, "both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else." Right now, I'm worried about the damage that might be done by one particularly wrong-headed idea: the notion that, in stark contrast to Keynes's teaching, government spending destroys jobs.
No, that's not a typo. House Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans regularly rail against "job-killing government spending." Think about that for a minute. The claim is that employment actually declines when federal spending rises. Using the same illogic, employment should soar if we made massive cuts in public spending—as some are advocating right now.
Acting on such a belief would imperil a still-shaky economy that is not generating nearly enough jobs. So let's ask: How, exactly, could more government spending "? jobs"?
It is easy, but irrelevant, to understand how someone might object to any particular item in the federal budget—whether it is the war in Afghanistan, ethanol subsidies, Social Security benefits, or building bridges to nowhere. But even building bridges to nowhere would create jobs, not destroy them, as the congressman from nowhere knows. To be sure, that is not a valid argument for building them. Dumb public spending deserves to be rejected—but not because it kills jobs.
The generic conservative view that government is "too big" in some abstract sense leads to a strong predisposition against spending. OK. But the question remains: How can the government destroy jobs by either hiring people directly or buying things from private companies? For example, how is it that public purchases of computers destroy jobs but private purchases of computers create them?
One possible answer is that the taxes necessary to pay for the government spending destroy more jobs than the spending creates. That's a logical possibility, although it would require extremely inept choices of how to spend the money and how to raise the revenue. But tax-financed spending is not what's at issue today. The current debate is about deficit spending: raising spending without raising taxes.
For example, the large fiscal stimulus enacted in 2009 was not "paid for." Yet it has been claimed that it created essentially no jobs. Really? With spending under the Recovery Act exceeding $600 billion (and tax cuts exceeding $200 billion), that would be quite a trick. How in the world could all that spending, accompanied by tax cuts, fail to raise employment? In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the stimulus's effect on employment in 2010 was at least 1.3 million net new jobs, and perhaps as many as 3.3 million.
A second job-destroying mechanism operates through higher interest rates. When the government borrows to finance spending, that pushes interest rates up, which dissuades some businesses from investing. Thus falling private investment destroys jobs just as rising government spending is creating them.
There are times when this "crowding-out" argument is relevant. But not today. The Federal Reserve has been holding interest rates at ultra-low levels for several years, and will continue to do so. If interest rates don't rise, you don't get crowding out.
In sum, you may view any particular public-spending program as wasteful, inefficient, leading to "big government" or objectionable on some other grounds. But if it's not financed with higher taxes, and if it doesn't drive up interest rates, it's hard to see how it can destroy jobs.
Let's try one final argument that is making the rounds today. Large deficits, it is claimed, are creating huge uncertainties (e.g., over what will eventually be done to reduce them) and those uncertainties are depressing business investment. The corollary is a variant of what my Princeton colleague Paul Krugman calls the Confidence Fairy: If you cut spending sharply, confidence will soar, spurring employment and investment.
As a matter of pure logic, that could be true. But is there evidence? Yes, clear evidence—that points in the opposite direction. Business investment in equipment and software has been booming, not sagging. Specifically, while real gross domestic product grew a paltry 2.3% over the last four quarters, business spending on equipment and software skyrocketed 14.7%. No doubt, there is lots of uncertainty. But investment is soaring anyway.
Despite all this evidence and logic, some people still claim that fiscal stimulus won't create jobs. Spending cuts, they insist, are the route to higher employment. And ideas have consequences. One possibly frightening consequence is that our limping economy might have one of its two crutches—fiscal policy—kicked out from under it in an orgy of premature expenditure cutting. Given the current jobs emergency, that would be tragic.
Yet it is undeniable that we have a tremendous long-run deficit problem to deal with—and the sooner, the better. So it appears we're caught in a dilemma: We need both more spending (or lower taxes) to create jobs and less spending (or higher taxes) to tame the deficit monster. Can we square the circle?
Actually, yes. Suppose we enacted a modest fiscal stimulus program specifically designed for maximum job creation. My personal favorite is a tax credit for firms that add to their payrolls, but there are other options. And suppose we combined that with a serious plan for reducing future deficits—and enacted the whole package now. Then we could, in a sense, have our cake and eat it, too.
A package like that is not fantasy. I believe that a bipartisan group of economists, if given the authority, free of political interference, would design some version of it. But that's not how budget decisions are, or should be, made. And as long as one political party clings to the idea that government spending kills jobs, it's hard to see how we extricate ourselves from this mess. As Keynes understood, ideas, whether right or wrong, have consequences.
Mr. Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, is a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303635604576392023187860688.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#
Comments
-
And that's on the WSJ editorial page, not some leftist mag
-
Jonas.dini wrote: »And that's on the WSJ editorial page, not some leftist mag
The WSJ lets non-conservative people publish op-eds, but you shouldn't take that as meaning that they endorse their views. Most WSJ op. eds are garbage. I would be surprised if their editorial board didn't believe that gov. spending kills jobs. -
allreasoned_out wrote: »The WSJ lets non-conservative people publish op-eds, but you shouldn't take that as meaning that they endorse their views. Most WSJ op. eds are garbage. I would be surprised if their editorial board didn't believe that gov. spending kills jobs.
Just an observation b, not taking it as being indicative of a shift in their general perspective -
allreasoned_out wrote: »The WSJ lets non-conservative people publish op-eds, but you shouldn't take that as meaning that they endorse their views. Most WSJ op. eds are garbage. I would be surprised if their editorial board didn't believe that gov. spending kills jobs.
I agree. Some of the ideas that they are giving to people are nothing but deconstructive. -
To me this is an open and shut case. I agree with many parts of the article. But the average american is stupid. They don't like math. They hate being knocked over the head with logic. Its easy to talk about religion and opinion and cultural wars. Sit em in front of a budget and they shut the ? up.
-
I'm an average American citzen and understand this simple point......you can't/won't get out of debt by spending more money.
average stupid response
thats an oversimplification of the situation at hand -
I'm an average American citzen and understand this simple point......you can't/won't get out of debt by spending more money.
wrong ok when a buisness owner gets a operating loan so he can hire workers and buy product to sell.
he does this makes a profit and he makes a profit and pays back the loan interest.
see he went into debt to produce wealth.
samething when a kid gets a student loan for college. -
politicalthug202 wrote: »wrong ok when a buisness owner gets a operating loan so he can hire workers and buy product to sell.
he does this makes a profit and he makes a profit and pays back the loan interest.
see he went into debt to produce wealth.
samething when a kid gets a student loan for college.
they won't hear you though...... -
politicalthug202 wrote: »wrong ok when a buisness owner gets a operating loan so he can hire workers and buy product to sell.
he does this makes a profit and he makes a profit and pays back the loan interest.
see he went into debt to produce wealth.
samething when a kid gets a student loan for college.they won't hear you though......
. . -
ok, but the fed govt isn't a private enterprise
giving out loans to business is good to private corporations..........but the problem is the recoup of loans given to the private sector, and mismanagement of the fed govts liabilities
it's great to help private businesses expand, but if the fed were run like a private biz, it would be considered a failure like Lehman brothers
IMO, a govt entity shouldn't be leveraged at all since they can print money -
Are you serious? Business loans are given out to small business owners for hiring purposes. BTW your comparison of student loans and bus. loans aren't one in the same. If you went into a bank and asked for a loan so you could hire more people and buy more products to sell,I really doubt you would get that loan.FYI loans DON'T get paid back by just paying the interest alone....have you ever paid off a debt of yours?
You're first analogy was completely off the mark (when you compared yourself to the US debt)
And according to Michelle Bachman "all we have to do is continue to pay down the interest" (that was in response to a question about the debt limit)
And no a bank would not ask for a loan SPECIFICALLY to hire ppl. -
I Love this country but FEAR the government
I completely ignored your post. Because it follows this idealistic virtue that government = bad, private = good.
Following a handbook and being a stereotype of your political identity shows how much a sheep you are. Democrat or Republican.
You're a sheep of private corporations, while others are sheep of the government. But you're both sheep. Y'all are the same ppl but on different aisles of the debate.
Another thing, the essence of this private vs public argument is quite stupid. Because at the end of the day, both entities are ran by PEOPLE. And whether the person has government credentials, or not, they are still capable of human follies.
What part of that do you not understand? Its sad that you can give me a list of things against government but couldn't generate your own list for why private entities are just as bad.
You're a fuckn sheep. -
That list wasn't made by me -- since you seem to think that private entities can be just as corrupt as the US government?
State insurance regulator in line for $600,000 consulting job
Official would oversee portfolio of risky policies written by bond insurer Ambac
By Cary Spivak of the Journal Sentinel
June 28, 2011 |(109) Comments
Roger Peterson, a longtime employee of the state Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, is in line for a sixfold pay increase when he leaves state employment to immediately become a privately paid consultant to the state in the Ambac case, according to a plan pending before a circuit judge.
Currently, Peterson is paid just over $100,000 annually as a deputy division administrator for regulation and enforcement.
As part of his duties, he also serves as the special deputy commissioner overseeing the restructuring of Ambac Assurance Corp. - the financially ailing bond insurance company that is regulated by the Wisconsin insurance commissioner's office and is being restructured under the supervision of a Lafayette County judge.
Under the proposal by Insurance Commissioner Ted Nickel, Peterson, who has been with the department for more than 20 years, would quit his state job and become a full-time special deputy commissioner to oversee Ambac's $42 billion segregated account - that's the portfolio holding Ambac's riskiest policies.
Ambac would pay Peterson $600,000 annually, plus a $375,000 bonus if he stays on the job for 40 months. He would also receive a $7,500 monthly housing allowance for three months - if the contract is approved, he would move to New York - plus some expenses, according to a motion pending before Judge William Johnston.
Last year, Kimberly Shaul, who was deputy insurance commissioner, handled both jobs, as Peterson has done.
"I was amazed with her ability to handle both roles," said Sean Dilweg, the insurance commissioner in Gov. Jim Doyle's administration. "It's a strain."
Nickel, who was appointed by Gov. Scott Walker, wants Peterson to quit his state job and work as a consultant because the Ambac case has "moved into the more active phase," explained Eileen Mallow, assistant deputy insurance commissioner.
"It's basically like having two jobs," said Michael B. Van Sicklen, a Foley & Lardner attorney representing the commissioner.
Neither Peterson nor Nickel responded to calls for comment on the proposed change.
The proposal brought an immediate harsh reaction from a group of Ambac creditors. Because Peterson would now be paid by Ambac, the creditors group says it will cost them, since Ambac owes them and other creditors billions.
"Mr. Peterson would be making four times the salary of Wisconsin's governor and chief justice of the Supreme Court," according to the objection filed in court by the creditors group, which consists of hedge funds that own securities Ambac insured. "This is inequitable and unconscionable when . . . policyholders have already waited nearly 15 months for payment of their claims" and "in all likelihood will recover only a fraction of what they are due if the (Ambac account) ever does begin to pay."
Mallow defended the salary, saying, "If you look at and compare (Peterson) to his peer group out there, he is in the middle to low range."
The creditors' motion, put together by attorneys from the Chicago-based firm Jenner & Block and Milwaukee's Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, also levies sharp criticism against Peterson and the state commissioner's office, saying they should have seen the problems at Ambac long before the company was on the verge of failure.
"Whatever Mr. Peterson and (the commissioner's office) are doing is not working," the creditors' motion argues, questioning whether "Peterson will be able to turn things around simply because he moves to New York to dedicate more time" to the case.
The dispute is the latest in the contentious battle involving billions of dollars that is being played out in Lafayette County. The case landed in rural Wisconsin because, though its headquarters is in New York, Ambac was founded in Wisconsin and remains under the jurisdiction of Wisconsin insurance regulators.
The complex case is being watched nationally because it affects the finances of corporations, hospitals, investors and state and local governments nationwide. Scores of lawyers have collected millions of dollars in fees. Through last fall, Milwaukee's Foley & Lardner, which represents the commissioner, had billed Ambac $7.1 million.
Ambac provides insurance policies similar to mortgage insurance guaranteeing that bondholders are paid. When the economy collapsed, many of those bonds, particularly those backed by subprime mortgage loans, went into default, leaving Ambac on the hook.
Dilweg and the court last year placed Ambac's riskiest policies, valued at tens of billions of dollars, into a segregated account to separate those from the safer policies. Overall, the company insures more than $300 billion in bonds, many of which are low-risk, such as municipal bonds.
Mallow defended the handling of Ambac by Peterson and the commissioner's office, noting that the office increased scrutiny of Ambac in late 2007 and 2008. Prior to the office's taking action, Ambac "wasn't doing anything that was not consistent with insurance law," she said.
http://www.jsonline.com/business/124653423.htmlThe biggest reason Obama can't create jobs -- the private sector lives in fear of his policies/ ideologies & his agenda for America.
this is a fuckn myth....back this up with a legitimate fact
the private sector lives in fear??? lol how can you live in fear when you are hitting record profits. Shut the ? up. And its A BUSINESS. Seriously, what business is planning their 4th quarter profits off of budget deficit talks??? Is you stupid??? That is a myth. You supply side republicans be killing me man. -
That list wasn't made by me -- since you seem to think that private entities can be just as corrupt as the US government? which I don't think they are.....here's your chance to show others what you know about said private entities. BTW the private sector UNlike the government can't print money. The biggest reason Obama can't create jobs -- the private sector lives in fear of his policies/ ideologies & his agenda for America. This President is totally incompetent.
So there you fuckn go. You keep complaining about the government this and the government that. Yet you love to ignore that many of the same ppl running your beloved private corporations were government employees.
And the only reason they switched over, is because of payroll increases.
But oooooooh no! Let Ann Coulter tell you, and its "look at the government employees getting payroll increases left and right." (she just said this on Bill Maher this past friday)
But could you imagine if the government tried to match this 6fold increase. This would be front page news on Fox. But the fact that its the private corporation doing it, it gets labeled as good business. You're a fuckn sheep b.....
It comes down to the ppl. As I said before, you just don't wanna admit that, because your entire being is predicated behind "government = bad, private = good" -
I still contend that Obama has instilled so much fear within the small business community
define a small business -
bank give operating loans for business loans all the time to expand their operations
and hire more people.
internet start ups use business loans all time to start a company.
they make a profit and pay back a thje loan and interest.
thats how you create wealth. capital investment.
getting a student loan is the samething, the government gives student loans
so a person is more employable, as a result as a college graduate, they have a higher salary
and pay more taxes, and they payback the loan over time. the person wins, the government wins and the
the economy wins,because that person contributes more to gdp -
The bolded area above only ---- FYI just how do you explain your point or just maybe you can't?
Which countries have had most, and least, GDP growth per person since 2001?
FOR all its faults, GDP per person is still the measure that gives the best indicator of economic progress or lack thereof. The countries where GDP per head grew fastest between 2001 and 2010—Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan—are all rich in natural resources, and were beneficiaries of the past decade’s boom in commodity prices. China is an exception to this rule, which makes its growth even more impressive. And while it usually helps to start relatively poor, a bad start does not necessarily result in success later on. Haiti and Zimbabwe have both explored how much ruin there is in a nation over the past decade and show little sign of improving. They are two of only 15 countries that have seen negative growth since 2001. Slow population growth also helps: although America's economy has grown considerably faster than Japan's since 2001, Japan’s population has shrunk while America's has risen. This means that income per head in Japan has grown almost as rapidly as in America over this period.
if you consider how GDP per person is calculated, I think you are invalidating your own argument with the underlined. How can you credit a country as having economic progress when its only raising its GDP per person off of the economic rent of selling a natural resource?
the quality of life in those countries suck for the most part, striking oil hasn't done anything to improve the economy overall in those countries except make the elite even richer. I wouldn't exactly call expanding the income gap between rich and poor "economic progress." -
IMO I think any employer with less than 50 employees are considered small bus owners. However the info below says otherwise.
Did you know that the legal definition of a small business is determined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)? Title 13, Part 121 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets forth in detail the criteria to be used by the SBA in making small business determinations. Examples of these criteria include the number of workers employed by a business, annual receipts, and the nature of the many relationships with affiliates. The SBA establishes small business "size standards" on an industry-by-industry basis using statistics from a wide range of sources. There are size standards in each industry (e.g. manufacturing, heavy construction, specialty trade construction, retail trade, etc.) that a business must meet in order to be considered small.
But that's my point. There are size and standards of each industry. But you couldn't even name the policies that affect small business in each industry. You can't just throw out a blanket statement as "he's hurting small businesses," when a small business in retail trade, is different than a small business in manufacturing.
You republicans (and democrats) with your flat one size fits all theories need to shut the ? up.
Stop hiding behind this "small business" and "American ppl" rhetoric. You don't even know what you're defending. So how can you defend it?
What state are you from? You couldn't even tell me how the democrats/republicans in your own state are affecting policy. I'm pretty sure the federal government is the least of your worries. -
Since when does govt spending NOT create jobs? If it wasnt for govt funding, how many cops and firefighters would be out of work?!!
Republicans being terrible at math will be the biggest reason Obama wins re-election in 2012. Okay, the biggest reason Obama is still the favorite to win in 2012, he could still lose. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »Since when does govt spending NOT create jobs? If it wasnt for govt funding, how many cops and firefighters would be out of work?!!
Republicans being terrible at math will be the biggest reason Obama wins re-election in 2012. Okay, the biggest reason Obama is still the favorite to win in 2012, he could still lose.
Those are not the type of jobs we are generally speaking out when we say government spending creates jobs. The jobs Obama is pushing for are infrastructure development jobs for railways, highways, bridges etc.
Cause those jobs also accelerate economic production and consumption.
And 70% of firefighters are volunteers -
heyslick has parkinsons
-
A perfect storm of more regulations, higher taxes, union favors, and heavy-handed liberal economic policies are hurting small businesses like never before.
already a biased article/studyThe independent poll conducted by the Lombardo Consulting Group and commissioned by the Chamber found that eight out of 10 small business owners say that they are either “very” or “somewhat concerned” about the growth in the size and power of the U.S. federal government over the past few years (nearly half — 45% — are “very concerned” about it).
they still haven't defined what industries these small business owners represent. Until I get a breakdown of those 8 small business owners, and what industries they are with, you don't know WHY the are concerned. Whats the point of complaining about something if you don't know why?Across the board, small business owners feel that this administration’s policies are not having a positive effect on the country’s economic situation. Almost half (46%) think that this administration’s policies are making the economy worse, while 22% feel that they are having no real effect. Just 30% believe that this administration’s policies are making the economy better.
I'm with the 46% too, because I think he's becoming too moderate.
See here's the catch with this article. Everybody is voicing displeasure with Obama, but the article is not giving supported reasons for the displeasure. So if I as a left leaning independent voice displeasure, I'm automatically a part of that 46%. But that doesn't mean that my displeasure is a cosign of republican policies.
That sir is called reading the ? .....• Ineffective administration policies — 44% of small business owners think that this administration’s policies will result in fewer jobs in the U.S., compared with 30% who believe that they will result in more jobs (19% believe that this administration’s policies will have no effect on the U.S. job situation). Nearly six in ten (57%) small business owners feel that this administration does not have a clear plan for creating jobs.
Fewer jobs like outsourcing? you mean that thing that republicans care nothing about?• Threats to job creation — 25% of small business owners think that “higher taxes” will be the primary threat to job creation, 23% think that “chronically high budget deficits” will be the principal issue over the next two years, and 22% feel that “expansion of the government’s role in the economy” will be the primary threat to job creation.
I'm glad this point was brought up. Isn't this the #1 reason why Republicans won't raise taxes??? Because raising taxes will hurt job creation. BUT ONLY 25% OF SMALL BUSINESSES BELIEVE THAT. Therefore your own study just dismantled Boehners assertion.• Soaring budget deficits — 55% of all small business owners are “very concerned” that chronically high budget deficits will hurt job creation. An additional 35% are “somewhat concerned” about the issue. Almost half — 45% — of small business owners think that the federal government should improve the U.S. economy by spending less money and focusing on reducing the deficit.
the debt that the federal gov't holds does not affect the loan ability of small businesses. wtf??? those two don't even correlate. If US bonds are still being bought at a constant level, then how the ? are small business "concerned." If the fed is not concerned, why the ? are they???
This is where perception is not reality. Any business owner that is scared about 4th quarter profits because of the administration, and is scared because of "uncertainty" should not be in business. ? is never certain. Y'all sound like cry babies. -
In addition, if you yourself can't defend an article and its calculation from beginning to end then don't use the article.
-
I'm an average American citzen and understand this simple point......you can't/won't get out of debt by spending more money.
flawed logic. if i get a second job to pay off a credit card what do you call that? -
conservative bloggers,op ed writers and politicians try to make it seem like "small business" refers to your grandma's cat fish restaurant ."small business" is nothing more than a multi national corp that files its sub companies as s-corps
ex. energizer owns playtex who owns hawaiian tropic the latter is probably considered a "small business"
