Gloom And Doom Hits Home.

[hoglaw]

The term "job creators" implies credit due for something wonderful that they alone can provide. I'd like to know who it is specifically I should be thankful to for my job, my employer, or the people that pay him, without whom he'd have never have had a business to begin with?

(aside) It's worth mentioning that the source for 50% of our work for the last 4 years was... you got it... government work, specifically a VA hospital addition and a new school funded by that dreaded stimulus mony that didn't do any good.

See, it's people like you who go and screw up a perfectly good rant with logic. The term "job creators" is a euphamism created for the purpose of securing votes. How can you hate a mom and pop grocery store or a bed and breakfast? The idea that "small business" is the engine for employment is completely misguided. The economy and demand are the engine for employment. A strong bottom line, good credit rating, and low interest rates stimulate the economy. The corporate fat cats aren't going to work 120 hours a week because folks are spending more money, they're going to hire more ditch diggers! Unfortunately, the people in this country that have the strongest opinions are the easiest ones to sway.

[hank franklin]

There simply is not a crisis of urchins suckling at the government teet.

But the military has essentially become welfare at this point.

Thank you for these and other very fine comments. The military has been welfare for decades, my dad worked for McDonnell Douglas (military contractor) and he would tell you it was welfare back in the 80's. It might be OK to do this if you aren't bajillions in debt but when you print money to keep the system afloat, somebody (us idiots) will pay.

[jeb]

Nope, if you think everybody has the same chance, you're delusional. The kid that grows up in the inner city tenements with no father and a drug-addicted mother does NOT have the same chance I did, and I grew up in a lower middle class family, let alone the kid who grows up in the suburbs with two parents and plenty of money. The kid that grows up in a trailer in the middle of the Ozarks with both parents on welfare does not have the same chance, either. The people in those rags to riches stories are exceptional people, because it takes an exceptional person to make it coming from "rags", while it only takes an average person to make it when they already have a head start. And it's not getting any easier to just be solidly in the middle class. A lot of middle class jobs have simply disappeared.

Yeah, poor people in America are not nearly as poor as poor people in third world countries. But the cost of living in America is also a lot more expensive than it is in those countries. And do we really want to see the same kind of poverty in America as I've seen in parts of Africa? How much can we cut welfare and still take care of all the people, including kids, who really need it to live?

Everyone does have the same chance, some might have to work harder at it. There are also many examples of childern that come out of "stable" homes that are complete failures. It works both ways.

Cost of living has nothing to do with it. The average person in poverty in the USA is by no means poor. The definition of poverty and poor that the govt uses is very different than what common sense tells us it should mean. Defining those based on not being able to keep up with the Jones', as the govt does, is ludicrous. Poverty means not being able to feed your family, not that you have to make do with a used car because you can't afford a new one.

[jeb]

Who are these job creators I keep hearing about?

I used to think the phrase referred to employers, but employers don't create jobs. Employers hire and fire to keep their workforce numerous enough to meet the demand for their goods or services efficiently. Demand slows, employers lay people off. Demand increases and they hire. For an employer to simply hire more people than necessary to meet sales would seem pretty foolish, even to a weak mind like mine.

For demand to rise, consumers have to be willing (and able) to spend more money than they are now. A good number of the folks I know simply don't have any extra money to spend, especially those that are laid off. My employer (construction) has laid off 29 just this year, and he won't be hiring until he has the need to. If he simply "created" 29 new jobs, we'd be out of business in a hurry.

The term "job creators" implies credit due for something wonderful that they alone can provide. I'd like to know who it is specifically I should be thankful to for my job, my employer, or the people that pay him, without whom he'd have never had a business to begin with?

(aside) It's worth mentioning that the source for 50% of our companiy's work for the last 4 years was... you got it... the government, specifically a VA hospital addition and a new school funded by that dreaded stimulus money that didn't do any good.

Apparently in your world, a job creator is someone who only hires and never lets folks go. That's not reality, especially in a cyclic and weather dependent trade like construction.

You need to thank both your employer and the folks that pay/employ them. And on up the chain. Saying they didn't create the job because the demand was there anyway is naive. They took a risk and started a business and hired people to do work. Nobody said they "alone can provide". It's up to the person willing to take the chance and willing to deal with all the trials and tribulations of running a company. Most of the small businesses don't make it, but at least they're trying. It's blindingly obvious that you have to a healthy, growing economy to drive that engine ever forward. But that does not mean the job creators just fell into it and are swimming in others peoples money, either.

Increasing regulations, Obama-don't-Care health care costs, increased taxes, federal fiscal mismanagement, etc are all driving those jobs overseas. I'm not saying we should turn our backs and let folks dump waste into our rivers. But we have to treat businesses like allies instead of enemies like the current administration is doing.

[Quillback]

As several previous posts have pointed out, the big money is spent on SS, Medicare and defence. That's where the money is. It could be that this sequester will force Congress and President to look for budget cuts in these programs, my guess is we'll see a trade off, budget cuts in the big programs and some kind of redo of the sequestration.

[mixermarkb]

Ok. So I pretty much am just sitting here going "yeah, what Al said." The issue of "everyone has an equal chance" kind of raised my hackles a bit.

A quick story:

My stepson Sid, is about to turn 6. His cousin Luke is 7. Sid's mom and I are educated, with me working as an audio engineer at a large church in west St. Louis county for 11 years now, as well as freelancing for live production companies, and making records in recording studios. His mom is back in school, finishing up her degree. We have a stable home, with no drugs or alcohol at home (mom is a social drinker). My mom has accepted Sid as if he's her own blood, as have I. She is a retired elementary teacher and administrator, with 35 years of classroom and staff development experience. Sid goes to mermac valley schools, with computers in his kindergarten classroom, and a large touch screen instead of a chalkboard. He gets read to all the time, and in general has people in his life that place his well being, and education first. He's signed up for T-ball, gets to go fishing a lot, and gets to go to museums, the Science Center, and a wonderful church kids program all the time.

I'm not saying any of this to brag, but his mom and I try.

Now, lets look at his cousin Luke, who is pretty much Sid's best friend, even though he lives a few hours away in Southern Missouri. Luke's Dad, lives on a disability check from injuries sustained when he took a fall from a few stories up while working construction on a prison. He's in much better shape now, but still has liver issues from the injury. I'm sure his daily drinking doesn't help his liver any. Maybe he could work, maybe not. He's not a bad guy, he gives Luke lots of hugs and love, and keeps a clean house, and keeps his son in clean clothes and food. To relax, he likes to smoke a little weed. I'm sure he tries to keep it away from his son, but it is in the same house from time to time.

Luke's mom, who at the moment has primary custody, just got arrested over the weekend for felony charges related to Meth and misdemeanor marijauna charges. She has bounced from man to man in the past 2 or so years that I've been a part of the family, with one of them being an ex-con who she picked up from prison and moved right in with her and the kids. The cops who raided Luke's moms house told his dad that the large dog that was living in the house had done his business all over the house, and that he had been living in filth. Luke's school has a computer lab, and caring teachers, but simply doesn't have the technology that the school district here does, because its in a more depressed area.

My point is, Luke simply doesn't have the same chances that Sid does. Will he be a failure and Sid a success? Nothing is for sure, but Sid has people in his life who are really trying to give him a head start.

Belonging, and self image, is huge to kids. Kids crave attention, and they will do what it takes to get it. Either good attention, for doing well, or bad attention, for acting out. They will get attention. That's why programs for early childhood, and education are critical. We as a country can either pay when the kids are young, and support Head Start and public schools, to give kids like Luke all the extra chances to pull himself up and earn attention for excelling, or we can pay for crime prevention, law enforcement, and prisons to house those at risk kids when they are older and find attention in other ways.

Either way, we pay.

[Quillback]

I don't think you'll find anyone here that isn't willing to see money spent on kids like Luke to give them a chance at living a good life. I'd argue that having that money coming from the federal govt. is the least efficient way to help kids like Luke, we've been doing this since LBJ started his war on poverty and we've still got kids like Luke and parents like he has. We need to fundamentally change the way we provide social services, unfortunately this type of change seems beyond our ability to make it happen, so what we do is spend more money, which I guess makes people feel good, but it just isn't getting the job done, and you provide a perfect example.

[mixermarkb]

If it wasn't for the federal government programs, like Head Start, Medicaid, and school lunches, and even his Dad's check, Luke would be WAY worse off.

Like I said, we can pay now, or we can pay later. But as a country, and a society, we will pay.

If some people in DC will start working together, and coming up with ways to streamline and make things better, we can pay less. But one side saying they pretty much don't/won't pay for any social programs, is not an idea based in reality.

We will pay.

[Flyflinger]

It's funny watching tax slaves bicker.

Here is the truth: You are all tax cattle....the government is the farmer. The farmer (government) does not care what their cows (you) moo about...as long as you stay in the fence and keep giving up the milk.

[cnr]

Here is the truth: You are all tax cattle....the government is the farmer. The farmer (government) does not care what their cows (you) moo about...as long as you stay in the fence and keep giving up the milk.

Ha. I like that analogy. Keep the minions happy.