The American Jobs Act

It didn't take a lot of deep thinking to assess that speech even as Obama was giving it. There were no surprises, nothing he or his supporters haven't said before, no thinking outside the box. I could sorta understand throwing more money at the problem if there had been any meaningful progress with the other billions of dollars of "incentives" the Administration has dumped into the economy, but there isn't. Tax breaks for hiring ex-military personnel--to do what? Statistics already show consumer demand in the doldrums. How does hiring veterans to make more things consumers already don't want to buy help anyone? For that matter, the tax breaks for hiring vets and other selected people won't benefit the employer if the additional employees increase the costs of medical coverage he'll be required to provide them under other laws already on the books.

Plus Obama was too partisan and confrontational with Congress if he wants them to grab hold of the tar-baby (as in something that they'll be stuck with if they touch it) he's trying to hand them

The real killer in the deal is that Obama claims it won't affect the national debt and contains the means to pay for all the additional costs. But that's based on the premise of future payments and assumes that the president and congress that follows those now in office will be more willing to pay the costs run up by their predecessors than those in office now are willing to pay the debts passed along to them by those who preceded them. Obama has no control over whether or not the new debt will ever be repaid.

He's the one facing reelection problems with a high unemployment rate, not Congress and it's staffs. All of us citizens--100%--are affected by the growing national debt, compared with an unemployment rate of 9.1% Which way do you think the vote will go in 2012 on that percentile?

The wealthier a nation is, the stronger it has to be. That's a principle that holds true through pretty much all of history. Wealthier nations also stand to lose more through general instability. Any comparison of military size needs to be considered in that context, as I alluded to earlier in pointing out that it's not especially large as a percentage of our GDP, which is really the only sensible way to measure such things.

That said, yes, if we know anything about the government, it's that it'll usually make tough decisions only when it feels it has no other choice.

There is also, it's worth pointing out, not a 1-to-1 correlation between money and military. It's tremendously important, to be sure, but I don't think we're literally strong enough to face, say, six Chinese armies, simply because we spent six times more. We even have fewer actual soldiers, for example, so the money comparison is awfully narrow.

If the Chinese make weapons the way they make can openers we don't have anything to worry about.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

I heard a stat the other day that no President since 1945 has been re-elected when the unemployment rate was more than 7.5%. I think that was the figure.

Saudi Arabia disagrees.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

How so? Their military as a percentage of GDP is two and a half times as large as ours.

Even if what you say is a real relation, how can you determine the direction of causation? Maybe it's the fact of wealth that motivates the expansion of the army (hubris from economic dominance), not the necessity of the army causing its expansion.

This is a huge historiographical conclusion your coming to here with little to know evidence or even explanation of process.

Nothing in economics, for example, accounts for military action. All disputes can be hammered out in the market.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

I guess I'm just really confused (as usual, apparently). Are there really not enough jobs? My company hires all the time. We go through people pretty regularly. Is the issue moreso that a lot of people nowadays are un-hire-able? I tend to think so. I realize that in my part of the country things are typically a little different but still. I know the rest of the world has just as many Mexicans as we do here. But the jobs are there. All you have to is go and get them.

What is this plan anyway? I just can't be bothered to read it, or listen to it, because too many times my eyes just glaze over when Politico's start talking.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

In a purely literal sense, correct, I cannot definitely prove the direction of causation. But there are two other things to consider:

1) If I can't prove causation, neither can anyone else. I presented an alternative interpretation to the fairly standard line that the U.S. is acting irrationally in wanting a large military. What you're saying undermines this accusation as much as it does mine, and undermining that accusation was my entire purpose, so I'm okay with that. Not only because it weakens the statement I was taking issue with just as much as my response, but because there are so many flippin' things you can't be literally positive about that I hardly find that to be a trait that will disqualify me believing in something. I'm increasingly unsure as to whether or not "you can't be sure!" even qualifies as a counterargument any more. Unless I'm pretending I'm totally sure about something, I suppose.

2) My explanation involves people acting rationally with money and in general self-interest, which I think is generally a safer bet than positing something like "hubris" is responsible for such a large amount of money. But mainly, my statement comes from a pretty simple, universal truth of human experience: the more wealth is at stake, the more incentive people have to take it. And the more you have to lose, the more things that threaten stability matter to you. I'm not sure how one would go about disputing either of these claims, and if they don't, it's a straight shot to the idea that there is a clear correlation between wealth and the means necessary to protect it.

a neat op ed that may be of interest WAWA

Are jobs obsolete?



http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/0...ete/index.html


I remember being in my 20's when mobile phones and fax machines became somewhat affordable, and part of the pitch was that it would allow us to work less for the same money.

Of course it didnt really work out that way, what happened more often than not was you ended up working longer and into the weekend because one was always available. Yes more deals were cut and more money was made, but i'm not so sure it made much of a difference after factoring in the cost of pagers, Car phones and then the mobile phones.



My kids still cant fathom that my preferred business plan for my car phone ran me 500 bucks a month for 5000 minutes. Or that the phone itself was attached to the car.

..hey look another grey hair..

Well, what also is happening here is that things like loyalty to a company, longevity, great attendance, you know little things like that, are no longer important. What is important is if you can get the job done sooner than you're supposed to, because if you don't there's someone behind you waiting to take your place. At least that's what I'm told. I think that's BS because if there were lots of guys lining up to do my job then I'd be doing something else. What bothers me especially though is my bosses attitude towards workers in general and how its not really said outright bit its insinuated that there shouldn't be too much time off taken and if do take a little too much there's a very good chance that your job really will be gone when you come back.

Example: Our Welder in the gate shop has worked for the company for several years. He got hurt 3 months ago and wasn't allowed to file an L&I claim. Wasn't allowed. He was told that he could come to work and work light duty or he'd be let go. So, he came to work. Now he's been replaced in his own shop! He's worked that shop since they moved to that location like, 6 or 7 years ago!. He's a good welder, I told to look for work as welder somewhere else, I hope he does. And just because he had the audacity to get hurt on the job. A job that has no health benefits I might add.


Bah, I rambling. It doesn't matter, we take it in the short hairs around here and there is NO outrage. All people want to do is talk, talk, talk about it.