What happened?

[KPM]

I received this as an email today. This is what I have been talking about all the cut backs and layoffs because Obama scares small businesses. I know this is only a portion of what is happening, not including even smaller companies. The email is called.....

Do elections have consequences? Our road to Greece.

Do elections have consequences? If you have been paying attention
to the financial markets, you might think so. Wall Street has had
two horrible days since President Obama won a second term.

However, stock prices are not the only thing taking a hit. It
appears that the job market is also suffering. In the last 48
hours, the following major corporations have announced layoffs in
America.

• Energizer -

The St. Louis-based company said Thursday that it expects to shed
about 1,500 employees. When finished, the restructuring should lead
to $200 million in pretax yearly savings, Energizer said. It aims
to have most of its restructuring steps finished by the end of
September 2014.

• Westinghouse -

Westinghouse Anniston, the contractor responsible for shutting down
Anniston’s chemical weapons incinerator, has reduced its workforce
by another 50 employees.

• Research in Motion Limited -

Research in Motion Ltd., the maker of BlackBerry smartphones, laid
off about 200 people at its U.S. headquarters in Irving on
Wednesday, according to a source close to the company who did not
want to be named.

> • Lightyear Network Solutions -
>
> More than one dozen employees at a Pikeville company lost their
> jobs this week. Officials with Lightyear Network Solutions said
> they are consolidating offices in Louisville and Pikeville to save
> money.
>
> • Providence Journal -
>
> The Providence Journal Co. laid off 23 full-time workers Wednesday
> as part of a cost-cutting effort, including 16 members of the
> Providence Newspaper Guild and 7 non-union employees.
>
> • Hawker Beechcraft -
>
> The company says 240 employees will lose their jobs with the
> closing of Hawker Beechcraft Services facilities in Little Rock,
> Ark.; Mesa, Ariz.; and San Antonio, Texas.
>
> • Boeing (30% of their management staff) -
>
> Boeing Co. said Wednesday it plans to employ 30% fewer executives
> at its Boeing Defense, Space & Security unit by the end of 2012
> compared to 2010 levels.
>
> • CVPH Medical Center -
>
> CVPH Medical Center has handed pink slips to 17 employees. The
> layoffs — nine in management and eight hourly staffers — are
> part of an effort to “help bolster the hospital’s financial
> position in 2013 and beyond,” a press release said.
>
> • US Cellular -
>
> The move will result in 980 job cuts at U.S. Cellular, with 640 in
> the Chicago area, according to a spokeswoman. The cuts are slightly
> under 12 percent of the approximately 8,400 total employees U.S.
> Cellular had at the end of the third quarter.
>
> • Momentive Performance Materials -
>
> About 150 workers at Sistersville’s Momentive Performance
> Materials plant will be temporarily laid off later this month,
> officials said this week.
>
> • Rocketdyne -
>
> About 100 employees at Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, most of whom
> work in the San Fernando Valley, were laid off Wednesday in
> response to dwindling government spending on space exploration, the
> company said. The layoffs were effective immediately, and 75
> percent of them came at the facilities on Canoga and De Soto
> avenues, which employ about 1,100 people. The company has six sites
> across the Valley.
>
> • Brake Parts -
>
> The leader of an automotive parts plant in Lincoln County has told
> state officials that there are plans to lay off 75 workers starting
> in late December…The layoffs are expected to start Dec. 28 and
> continue in the first quarter of 2013
>
> • Vestas Wind Systems -
>
> Vestas Wind Systems A/S (VWS) is seeking to sell a stake of as much
> as 20 percent and said it’s reducing headcount by 3,000 to raise
> the staff cuts by the biggest wind turbine maker to almost a third
> over two years.
>
> • Husqvarna -
>
> Husqvarna AB (HUSQB), the world’s biggest maker of powered garden
> tools, plans to cut about 600 jobs in a move that will save 220
> million kronor ($33 million) a year by 2014.
>
> • Center for Hospice New York -
>
> The Center for Hospice and Palliative Care plans to temporarily lay
> off as many as 40 employees next year as it embarks on a major
> renovation of the inpatient unit at its Cheektowaga campus.
>
> • Bristol-Meyers -
>
> Bristol-Myers Squibb is following up its lackluster third-quarter
> results with almost 480 layoffs. As Pharmalot reports, the company
> notified the New Jersey government that it would scale back in
> Plainsboro, which means the cuts will hit its sales operations.
>
> • OCE North America -
>
> Trumbull printer- and scanning-equipment provider Oce North
> America, Inc. will lay off 135 workers in three Connecticut
> communities, including East Hartford, according to its notice with
> the state Labor Department.
>
> • Darden Restaurants -
>
> The company, which was among those who had received an Obamacare
> waiver in the past, is looking to limit workers to 28 hours per
> week. A full time employee that is required to have health
> insurance (lest the employer pay a fine) works 30 hours per week,
> as defined by the Obamacare law.
>
> • West Ridge Mine -
>
> In its statement, UtahAmerican Energy blames the Obama
> administration for instituting policies that will close down “204
> American coal-fired power plants by 2014″ and for drastically
> reducing the market for coal.
>
> • United Blood Services Gulf -
>
> United Blood Services Gulf South region, the non-profit blood
> service provider for much of south Louisiana and Mississippi, will
> lay off approximately 10 percent of its workforce. It was a hard
> decision to make according to Susan Begnaud, Regional Center
> Director for the Gulf South region.
>
> A layoff is tough enough for employees to deal with, imagine
> hearing the crushing news that your office is shutting down just
> before Thanksgiving and Christmas… Here are some of the business
> closings that were announced in just the past two days:
>
> •Caterpillar Inc. will close its plant in Owatonna Minn.
> •Mount Pleasant’s Albrecht Sentry Foods
> •The Target store at Manassas Mall Va.
> •Millennium Academy in Wake Forest NC
> •Target Closing Kissimmee FL Location
> •The Andover Gift Shop in Andover MA
> •Grand Union Family Markets Closing Storrs Location CT
> •Movie Scene Milford Location NH
> •Update: TE Connectivity Closing Greensboro Plant – 620 Layoffs
> Expected
> •Gomer’s Fried Chicken in South Kansas City
> •Kmart in Homer Glen
> •Fresh Market on Pine Street in Burlington
> •AGC Glass North America to permanently close its Blue Ridge Plant
> in Kingsport Tenn.
> •The Target store at Platte and Academy in Colorado Springs
> •The Roses store on Reynold Road in Winston-Salem NC
> •Meanders Kitchen losing its West Seattle location at 6032
> California Ave
> •Bost Harley-Davidson at 46th Avenue North and Delaware Ave. in
> West Nashville TN
> •Townsend Booksellers in Oakland
> •The Kmart store in Parkway Plaza off University Drive in Durham
> NC – 79 Jobs Lost

There are business's that are started and closed ....every day of every year I (and you) have been alive....and you can bet that in these larger companies the top execs, the Board of Directors, and the upper management will not miss a paycheck nor meals, or healthcare they will have no worries about losing their homes or the effect that the trauma of losing a long time job has on people.

I do know a lot about the Hostess situation.....this is the third time for them filling bankruptcy....in each time they got "union and worker co-operation" no raises for 4 of the last 5 years in this bankruptcy...give backs in vacation and benefits.....work rule changes etc....
Hostess came out with a new deli line of upscale breads...spent little to promote and sell it and lost a bundle......all management decisions...that sank the company for yet another time.
Hostess workers make around $18 an hour plus pension, they were paying a substantial part of their own insurance costs and the union let them quit contributing to the pension fund too the tune of about 900 million.....the pension system was "mutually agreed thru contract negotiations" in which workers agreed over decades to take less in pay, less in over all benefits-in order to secure those pension rights.
Over those several decades and during the bankruptcy years the workers still showed up, some took layoffs or jobs were cut all together and they helped shoulder the load of keeping the country afloat in these bad times (which my friend go all the way back to the Bush years)
The union did not force anything on Hostess-contracts between the 2 had an equal number of lawyers and reps from each side....when the contracts are submitted for vote-BOTH sides have signed off on the offers.......Hostess agreed to pension, wages and health provisions.
Hostess (or you put in any company that has done this since Chrysler asked for Government help in Reagans years and started the "worker giveback ball" rolling) gets itself in trouble-bad marketing, bad planning, new product lines that are ill thought out and finally negotiating contracts that they are unable to live up to....and they start renigging on their commitements. Sure the workers will help....every single time Hostess needed the "GIVEBACKS" of fairly negotiated agreements-the workers stepped up to the plate.......but they could not go to the store and tell the grocer:
"Hey turn back the clock 5 years because I just took a cut"
or to doctors or hospitals:
"Hey my kid is sick, but I just gave up some of my negotiated benefits-so cut me a break on the bill"
or to their retirement plans:
"Okay now I will have a smaller pension than was "PROMISED" to me in negotiations-so now the entire world will have to turn back its financial clock to 1965"

Companies every day may unwise moves that workers have no say in-and then blame the workers for their misteps and lack of forsight into their own planning.
I have worked for some major companies and they make totally bonehead moves that defy logic and then look for a scapegoat.
The ones that have been successful listen to employees and research their future products endlessly.
There are workers who get away with murder-but that is also the companies fault-thats what managers are for, and in 2012 management on most levels is at an all time low for efficiency.
Even unions want workers to be efficient and productive.....it serves no one if workers are not....and when things get tough the union steps up to help the company and to save jobs.
In this Hostess situation with 3 times of "helping out" in the last couple decades workers are more suspect of what is going on.
Hostess wanted this time to make all contracts null and void-and bankruptcy judge told them no-they must negotiate with the people they have had agreements and give them a chance to have some say.
I know this situation extremely well I went thru the exact same situation in 1988 with another major bakery company with baking facilities all over the world who up and closed our bakery with 30 days notice.....not because of bad business but because our Corporation was bought by another huge Family run corporation who had no clue as to the business of running baking operations....but they had been advised by their "think tank" to "diversify".
They came in with all manner of changes, they also came up with a whole new line of upscale breads, they spent millions to create new uniforms, new logos for all the trucks, new computerized over-and our bakery was in their corporate hometown.
Now it came out in the Business News magazine 5 years after the takeover that this major corporation paid way more than they should have because some of their execs and some of our execs let friends know that the merger was coming- and suddenly our stock went up-costing our new owners a bundle in the original deal.
About a month after this became big news-the annoucement was made that the baking operation in he new owners hometown that I worked for-was closing permanently-30 days notice....
About 4 years later the new owners sold the baking operation and got out of the bakery business.....not sure how that was we workers fault, nor the governments.
But the family owned corporations people did not miss a meal, did not lose anything.....except some of their standing as a "can do no wrong" corporation........about a 1000 people were put out of work in 1988....and around the globe probably many more lost jobs because of this
"absolutely wrong move to diversify without an understanding of product, marketing of that product and lastly poor top level scruples"

[KPM]

AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED PER MONTH BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: 20,000

AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED PER MONTH BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION EXCLUDING THE DISASTROUS LAST YEAR: 65,000

NUMBER OF MONTHS IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN WHICH THERE WERE 500,000 OR MORE JOBS CREATED: 0.

(In fact, there were no months in the Bush Administration in which there were 400,000 jobs created).

Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/numbe...#ixzz2C9eW7u84

[KPM]

blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track...
Here is a Wall Street Journal article about the jobs created under the 8 years of Bush. The WS Journal is hardly a Democratic leaning publication.
With the lower tax rate on the upper 2%....and all the deregulation....investments must have been at a record high and new jobs also..
But wait my friend-this article does not say that......it says that 23 million jobs were created under Clinton and his higher rates of tax on those same upper 2%?? Also the deficit went down, the budget was balanced 4 years in a row and workers incomes went up we had begun to pay down the debt.

Bush had a net gain of 1 million jobs at the end of his presidency?? The deficit went up, taxes were cut, 2 wars were started (unfunded except by borrowing) and the budget went thru the roof.

So where did all that tax money that the upper 2% go......if it did not create jobs in the US?
If the Bush tax cuts had done "positive things for the economy" we would not be having this discussion.....if the deregulations had done
positive things for the nation" we would not be having this discussion, we would not have had he financial meltdown nor the Bush call for bailouts and stimulis in his last year.

[KPM]

I quickly checked into the Money Markets question you raised and found this from Bloomburg about the reasoning behind turning annuities into a more guaranteed retirement income-since the stockmarket crashed so hard at the end of the Bush years and pensions for many people were wiped out. It does not seem like some takeover of peoples 401ks-but a possible option for those who may choose to go that route......people are not going to be forced into this option-its up to them.
Bloomberg
Retiree Annuities May Be Promoted by Obama Aides
By Theo Francis

The government is looking at ways to promote the conversion of 401(k)s and IRAs into steady payment streams after a significant decline in plan balances

(Bloomberg) — The Obama administration is weighing how the government can encourage workers to turn their savings into guaranteed income streams following a collapse in retiree accounts when the stock market plunged.

The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.
Annuities generally guarantee income until the retiree’s death, and often that of a surviving spouse as well. They are designed to protect against the risk that retirees outlive their savings, a danger made clear by market losses suffered by older Americans over the last year, David Certner, legislative counsel for AARP, said in an interview.
"There’s a real desire on a lot of people’s parts to try to encourage something other than just rolling over a lump sum, to make sure this money will actually last a lifetime," said Certner, legislative counsel for Washington-based AARP, the biggest U.S. advocacy group for retirees.

Promoting annuities may benefit companies that provide them through employers, including ING Groep NV (INGA:NA) and Prudential Financial Inc. (PRU), or sell them directly to individuals, such as American International Group Inc. (AIG), the insurer that has received $182.3 billion in government aid…

[King Of The Whole World]

AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED PER MONTH BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: 20,000

AVERAGE NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED PER MONTH BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION EXCLUDING THE DISASTROUS LAST YEAR: 65,000

NUMBER OF MONTHS IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN WHICH THERE WERE 500,000 OR MORE JOBS CREATED: 0.

(In fact, there were no months in the Bush Administration in which there were 400,000 jobs created).

Source: The Bureau of Labor Statistics


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/numbe...#ixzz2C9eW7u84

There have been more jobs loss in Obama's first term than Bush's. He may not have created a ton of jobs but we are losing jobs faster than we are gaining any jobs under Obama.

[King Of The Whole World]

There are business's that are started and closed ....every day of every year I (and you) have been alive....and you can bet that in these larger companies the top execs, the Board of Directors, and the upper management will not miss a paycheck nor meals, or healthcare they will have no worries about losing their homes or the effect that the trauma of losing a long time job has on people.
I do know a lot about the Hostess situation.....this is the third time for them filling bankruptcy....in each time they got "union and worker co-operation" no raises for 4 of the last 5 years in this bankruptcy...give backs in vacation and benefits.....work rule changes etc....
Hostess came out with a new deli line of upscale breads...spent little to promote and sell it and lost a bundle......all management decisions...that sank the company for yet another time.
Hostess workers make around $18 an hour plus pension, they were paying a substantial part of their own insurance costs and the union let them quit contributing to the pension fund too the tune of about 900 million.....the pension system was "mutually agreed thru contract negotiations" in which workers agreed over decades to take less in pay, less in over all benefits-in order to secure those pension rights.
Over those several decades and during the bankruptcy years the workers still showed up, some took layoffs or jobs were cut all together and they helped shoulder the load of keeping the country afloat in these bad times (which my friend go all the way back to the Bush years)
The union did not force anything on Hostess-contracts between the 2 had an equal number of lawyers and reps from each side....when the contracts are submitted for vote-BOTH sides have signed off on the offers.......Hostess agreed to pension, wages and health provisions.
Hostess (or you put in any company that has done this since Chrysler asked for Government help in Reagans years and started the "worker giveback ball" rolling) gets itself in trouble-bad marketing, bad planning, new product lines that are ill thought out and finally negotiating contracts that they are unable to live up to....and they start renigging on their commitements. Sure the workers will help....every single time Hostess needed the "GIVEBACKS" of fairly negotiated agreements-the workers stepped up to the plate.......but they could not go to the store and tell the grocer:
"Hey turn back the clock 5 years because I just took a cut"
or to doctors or hospitals:
"Hey my kid is sick, but I just gave up some of my negotiated benefits-so cut me a break on the bill"
or to their retirement plans:
"Okay now I will have a smaller pension than was "PROMISED" to me in negotiations-so now the entire world will have to turn back its financial clock to 1965"

Companies every day may unwise moves that workers have no say in-and then blame the workers for their misteps and lack of forsight into their own planning.I have worked for some major companies and they make totally bonehead moves that defy logic and then look for a scapegoat.
The ones that have been successful listen to employees and research their future products endlessly.
There are workers who get away with murder-but that is also the companies fault-thats what managers are for, and in 2012 management on most levels is at an all time low for efficiency.
Even unions want workers to be efficient and productive.....it serves no one if workers are not....and when things get tough the union steps up to help the company and to save jobs.
In this Hostess situation with 3 times of "helping out" in the last couple decades workers are more suspect of what is going on.
Hostess wanted this time to make all contracts null and void-and bankruptcy judge told them no-they must negotiate with the people they have had agreements and give them a chance to have some say.
I know this situation extremely well I went thru the exact same situation in 1988 with another major bakery company with baking facilities all over the world who up and closed our bakery with 30 days notice.....not because of bad business but because our Corporation was bought by another huge Family run corporation who had no clue as to the business of running baking operations....but they had been advised by their "think tank" to "diversify".
They came in with all manner of changes, they also came up with a whole new line of upscale breads, they spent millions to create new uniforms, new logos for all the trucks, new computerized over-and our bakery was in their corporate hometown.
Now it came out in the Business News magazine 5 years after the takeover that this major corporation paid way more than they should have because some of their execs and some of our execs let friends know that the merger was coming- and suddenly our stock went up-costing our new owners a bundle in the original deal.
About a month after this became big news-the annoucement was made that the baking operation in he new owners hometown that I worked for-was closing permanently-30 days notice....
About 4 years later the new owners sold the baking operation and got out of the bakery business.....not sure how that was we workers fault, nor the governments.
But the family owned corporations people did not miss a meal, did not lose anything.....except some of their standing as a "can do no wrong" corporation........about a 1000 people were put out of work in 1988....and around the globe probably many more lost jobs because of this
"absolutely wrong move to diversify without an understanding of product, marketing of that product and lastly poor top level scruples"

I think you really have a issue with business owners about their decisions and the money they make. I will say again they take all the risk when owning a business; they DO have to protect themselves. Sometimes you have to make choices that may not be popular with your employees or something’s they just will not understand. It sounds mean sometimes but your everyday employees are easier to replace than you’re higher up execs in business.

[King Of The Whole World]

I quickly checked into the Money Markets question you raised and found this from Bloomburg about the reasoning behind turning annuities into a more guaranteed retirement income-since the stockmarket crashed so hard at the end of the Bush years and pensions for many people were wiped out. It does not seem like some takeover of peoples 401ks-but a possible option for those who may choose to go that route......people are not going to be forced into this option-its up to them.
Bloomberg
Retiree Annuities May Be Promoted by Obama Aides
By Theo Francis

The government is looking at ways to promote the conversion of 401(k)s and IRAs into steady payment streams after a significant decline in plan balances

(Bloomberg) — The Obama administration is weighing how the government can encourage workers to turn their savings into guaranteed income streams following a collapse in retiree accounts when the stock market plunged.

The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.
Annuities generally guarantee income until the retiree’s death, and often that of a surviving spouse as well. They are designed to protect against the risk that retirees outlive their savings, a danger made clear by market losses suffered by older Americans over the last year, David Certner, legislative counsel for AARP, said in an interview.
"There’s a real desire on a lot of people’s parts to try to encourage something other than just rolling over a lump sum, to make sure this money will actually last a lifetime," said Certner, legislative counsel for Washington-based AARP, the biggest U.S. advocacy group for retirees.

Promoting annuities may benefit companies that provide them through employers, including ING Groep NV (INGA:NA) and Prudential Financial Inc. (PRU), or sell them directly to individuals, such as American International Group Inc. (AIG), the insurer that has received $182.3 billion in government aid…

I will find online where I have heard that Obama has talked about dipping into money market accounts. It makes sense because he loves to "share" the wealth.

[King Of The Whole World]

blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track...
Here is a Wall Street Journal article about the jobs created under the 8 years of Bush. The WS Journal is hardly a Democratic leaning publication.
With the lower tax rate on the upper 2%....and all the deregulation....investments must have been at a record high and new jobs also..
But wait my friend-this article does not say that......it says that 23 million jobs were created under Clinton and his higher rates of tax on those same upper 2%?? Also the deficit went down, the budget was balanced 4 years in a row and workers incomes went up we had begun to pay down the debt.

Bush had a net gain of 1 million jobs at the end of his presidency?? The deficit went up, taxes were cut, 2 wars were started (unfunded except by borrowing) and the budget went thru the roof.

So where did all that tax money that the upper 2% go......if it did not create jobs in the US?
If the Bush tax cuts had done "positive things for the economy" we would not be having this discussion.....if the deregulations had done
positive things for the nation" we would not be having this discussion, we would not have had he financial meltdown nor the Bush call for bailouts and stimulis in his last year.

I love it when the discussions bring up the predecessors but never talk about the issues at hand. We are in a troubling situation NOW. Obama has had 4 years to fix "Bush's mistakes" and hasn't even tried to balance a budget.

I know I didn't agree with everything Clinton did in his term but I know I'm about one of the 49 million that would take him back in a heart beat over Obama. At least he tried.

[King Of The Whole World]

I quickly checked into the Money Markets question you raised and found this from Bloomburg about the reasoning behind turning annuities into a more guaranteed retirement income-since the stockmarket crashed so hard at the end of the Bush years and pensions for many people were wiped out. It does not seem like some takeover of peoples 401ks-but a possible option for those who may choose to go that route......people are not going to be forced into this option-its up to them.
Bloomberg
Retiree Annuities May Be Promoted by Obama Aides
By Theo Francis

The government is looking at ways to promote the conversion of 401(k)s and IRAs into steady payment streams after a significant decline in plan balances

(Bloomberg) — The Obama administration is weighing how the government can encourage workers to turn their savings into guaranteed income streams following a collapse in retiree accounts when the stock market plunged.

The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.
Annuities generally guarantee income until the retiree’s death, and often that of a surviving spouse as well. They are designed to protect against the risk that retirees outlive their savings, a danger made clear by market losses suffered by older Americans over the last year, David Certner, legislative counsel for AARP, said in an interview.
"There’s a real desire on a lot of people’s parts to try to encourage something other than just rolling over a lump sum, to make sure this money will actually last a lifetime," said Certner, legislative counsel for Washington-based AARP, the biggest U.S. advocacy group for retirees.

Promoting annuities may benefit companies that provide them through employers, including ING Groep NV (INGA:NA) and Prudential Financial Inc. (PRU), or sell them directly to individuals, such as American International Group Inc. (AIG), the insurer that has received $182.3 billion in government aid…

I don't know if you remember but Clinton also proposed this back in the early 90's. He wanted to take I believe 10-15% of 401K's and IRA's for SS. The only reason it didn't happen is the people said no and the republican house and senate said no. So this is one of the reasons why people think it will be back on the table for Obama.

[KPM]

I don't know if you remember but Clinton also proposed this back in the early 90's. He wanted to take I believe 10-15% of 401K's and IRA's for SS. The only reason it didn't happen is the people said no and the republican house and senate said no. So this is one of the reasons why people think it will be back on the table for Obama.

I do not recall that either but will check into it.
The way I see the Obama thing is it is nothing more than a proposal to investigate what can be done for people who can lose everything in an instant (such as the crash at Bushs end) and those people "do not have time to make it back up" they are retired and suddenly they are broke.
NO ONE is going to be forced into doing anything with their private 401ks that they do not want to do-it is not like now its mandatory to do this ....there is no proposed legislation, no huge push, nothing on the horizen.
I'm sure that Clintons proposal was in the same mold-it would be an option-not mandated. Having options, CHOICES-is a good thing.

[KPM]

I love it when the discussions bring up the predecessors but never talk about the issues at hand. We are in a troubling situation NOW. Obama has had 4 years to fix "Bush's mistakes" and hasn't even tried to balance a budget.

I know I didn't agree with everything Clinton did in his term but I know I'm about one of the 49 million that would take him back in a heart beat over Obama. At least he tried.

Well there is a reasoning in comparison-not just to change the subject or to sidestep a question-I do not do that.
You compare other apples to apples, oranges to oranges and Presidents to Presidents-in order to see how each differ in their taste.
The discussion has been about Obama wanting to let the tax cuts expire for the upper 2%-putting them right back where they were under Clinton.
Bush is the one who lowered those rates upon the upper 2%.... so we have to "compare" what happened under Bush to Clinton and see what seems to be the better of the 2 for dragging down the deficit, still investing in our nation and bringing up the economy.
I posted what Bush did in his 8 years, the rich got richer-and did not invest in our country, the middle class and poor shrank and very few jobs were created. The tax dollars left to those upper 2% did not infact spur huge job growth.
Clinton did his hard lifting with a Republican Congress in his second term-Bush in his second term came close to sinking the financial system of our nation-......2 times he gave stimulis rebates to all working Americans, at the end of 2007 he began the cry about bailing out the banks and Wall Street and that work was unfinished when he left office.
Bush had the worst job creation record of any president (after cutting those upper 2% tax rates)
Clinton in his 8 years had the best record, even topping Reagan.
Now the question is-which is the better path to take-Bush and his cuts or Clintons?
That is why you compare-if you ignore the results of previous administrations on the economic front-you ignore data that helps you move forward.
I say again-if the tax cuts had worked for Bush-if jobs were created to the tune of-20 million we would not be having this conversation...people would not by 2/3rds margin in most polls "favor letting the cuts expire for the upper 2%.
SO my comparisons are not to avoid the question my friend-but to answer it.

[KPM]

I will find online where I have heard that Obama has talked about dipping into money market accounts. It makes sense because he loves to "share" the wealth.

My friend that is a kneejerk reaction at best.
The "wealth has been shared" in one way or another thru corporate tax credits, breaks and deductions for the last 70 plus years and even some moderate Republicans say these loopholes and backdoor credits need to be changed.
But mention helping the "working poor thru a tax credit" and its suddenly socialism.
You can not stay on Welfare for more than 2 years, Food Stamps are given out to as many working families as they are to non working, Medicaid goes to help as many working families as it does non working.....and when the income threshold is topped those working families no longer get any of these.....just as when a corporation no longer meets the requirements of the credits, deductions and breaks that are on the books-they no longer get them.
Not sure why these things bother the Christians of the country or anyone else-but a large block of people seem to hate the idea of helping working families-but embrace the Corporate Welfare that has expanded year after year.
If you invest in this country and produce jobs-I think you deserve every break you can find-if you invest overseas-you deserve none.
People who are working those dead end jobs hoping to move up or get some education deserve to be given a helping hand, and those who do not
should be limited in what they can receive and for how long.

[KPM]

I think you really have a issue with business owners about their decisions and the money they make. I will say again they take all the risk when owning a business; they DO have to protect themselves. Sometimes you have to make choices that may not be popular with your employees or something’s they just will not understand. It sounds mean sometimes but your everyday employees are easier to replace than you’re higher up execs in business.

Let me clarify what you said:
I have an issue with poorly run companies that take advantage of situations "in the name of profit" yes I will agree with that statement.
I have worked for nearly 45 years since my first job as a roofers helper.....I worked for the bakery and "honestly" told you about that,
I worked for a Savings and Loan in the loan dept. when the bakery closed -and that lasted about 9 months before the
"Savings and Loan scandal and bailout" which happened under Reagan and Bush that cost billions because of deregulation that was suppose to give that industry flexibility....
The S&L I worked for was closed because it had been selling customers product that was suppose to be government insured-and it was not!
This 4 state sized Savings and Loan-had swindled thousands and the bulk of them lost most of their investments...we as employees were kept in the dark on the truth...only the upper people knew the truth....
I have done many jobs and always been employed-but many employers give you a window into how things run-and most of the business's just were not on the up and up with workers nor customers in one way or another.
Let me say to you-I do not exaggerate, I do not add in nor detract from the experiences I have had in my work life-the truth is the truth.
Let me give you one more example of how manipulative and underhanded some who run business can be-in 72 my wife went to work for a local hometown restaurant-she was a carhop-(just like in Happy Days) she made 97 cents an hour-which was below minimum wage but the owner claimed she got tips hourly that made up the difference and. Some days my wife did make enough in tips to cover the diference per hour-other days slow days, weeknights, holidays-she did not-but each pay the owner signed and IRS form claiming my wife made those tips to the penny to keep her at 97 cents an hour. She was a union employee but the union was small but they offered to call him on this and fight to get her minimum wage my wife being young an naive said no its okay..........Fast forward 10 years my wife is now a shift manager and makes a fair hourly wage for the work-she becomes pregnant and at 6 months the owner comes to her and tells her she will have to take her pregnancy leave because
"it does not look good for a pregnant woman to be working behind the counter" he assures her she will have her job when she has the baby (our son)and wishes her well.....my wifes doctor said she was very healthy and could work until her last month but the owner insisted she quit.
Now she has the baby, six weeks later she goes back to her job and finds out "She is now a new hire because she took "early pregnancy leave"
the owner denies he told her she had to leave (he conveniently talked to her in his office with no one as a witness)
My wife loses her 3 weeks vacation a year and moves to the bottom of the seniority list-now explain to me how that is a fair protection of his rights as a business owner?
I worked for a plastics factory where the bosses expected you to work your lunch break if they had a backload of orders....they said eat your lunch on your 10 minute break...and this was not counted as extra time in the workday for your paycheck.
I was night manager at a restaurant from 72 to 74 and made $2.25 an hour-worked anywhere from 50 to 70 hours a week and was not paid overtime....I was a company man they said.
I then found out in the second year that the restaraunt chain paid its company assistant manager $300 a week for 40 hours???
When I questioned the owner he told me it was none of my business what the chain paid its company assistants and that I could not prove my claims of no overtime because each of my checks had no hourly rates, no hours worked listed.....only a total gross deductions and net.
Now the gross changed every week which I felt proved I was not company with a set salary so......I took those checks to a lawyer who immediately told me I had a good case and he would "feel out the owner" about making a one time payment to rectify the "oversight" of not paying me properly for 2 years and for ignoring willfully the labor laws of Illinois....if not we would take the case to the Labor Relations Board.
In about 2 months I got a check for a lump sum (split with my lawyer of course) and then quit with 2 weeks notice (better than he deserved) and went to work for the bakery.
Now I worked hard, I was loyal to this man and his restaurant and I trusted his word-only to find out he was taking advantage of me royally.
I could give you other examples of what I have learned but I am afraid they fall on deaf ears.
Not every company is like this, not every employer wants to cut and run in the name of profit-the good ones work their way out of it and their employees help.
But it is much "easier" to cut and run-to go out of country or to another poorer state and ask for credits and breaks to build a plant from scratch or renovate some old plant site then let the state, county and local government help defray the costs of all the expense...some even get property tax breaks guaranteed for 10 or more years and then they offer what were $15-20 dollar an hour jobs to the people at the new site for $10 bucks an hour....not to mention all the agreed upon vacations time, pensions and other fringes that the company negotiated with its workers at its original plant are now gone from their books. Yet has this type management "in the long term" really fruitful for our nation" NO it lowers the wages from those upper 2% on down, the middle class continues to fall behind, the poor even further....and those "top execs" you speak of pocket huge bonuses and stock options for reducing costs.......long term- eventually the upper 2% can only buy so many cars, homes, jewelry, appliances and toys and then there is little need for huge plants, huge facilities in the US because no one can buy those products.
It is the middle class working at decent wages and buying American made products that built this country-and there was a partnership between business and workers that worked.

[KPM]

SInce I have mentioned my younger brother the musician and carpet layer I feel obligated to mention my other brother 2 years younger than I who is a Republican....moderate in ideas but a Republican.
He is a Credit Union loan manager-he sits all day, does paperwork and reports and complains constantly about how people make too much to push brooms, fix cars, fix plumbing or electrical matters, how anyone can do those things and all just get too much in pay.
When I ask him why he did not become a custodian, or mechanic or plumber he says "I don't want to work that hard" it makes me laugh.
He values the mental work he does and feels he is worth every penny-but does not value good old fashioned work as worthy of good pay.

[King Of The Whole World]

Well there is a reasoning in comparison-not just to change the subject or to sidestep a question-I do not do that.
You compare other apples to apples, oranges to oranges and Presidents to Presidents-in order to see how each differ in their taste.
The discussion has been about Obama wanting to let the tax cuts expire for the upper 2%-putting them right back where they were under Clinton.
Bush is the one who lowered those rates upon the upper 2%.... so we have to "compare" what happened under Bush to Clinton and see what seems to be the better of the 2 for dragging down the deficit, still investing in our nation and bringing up the economy.
I posted what Bush did in his 8 years, the rich got richer-and did not invest in our country, the middle class and poor shrank and very few jobs were created. The tax dollars left to those upper 2% did not infact spur huge job growth.
Clinton did his hard lifting with a Republican Congress in his second term-Bush in his second term came close to sinking the financial system of our nation-......2 times he gave stimulis rebates to all working Americans, at the end of 2007 he began the cry about bailing out the banks and Wall Street and that work was unfinished when he left office. Bush had the worst job creation record of any president (after cutting those upper 2% tax rates)
Clinton in his 8 years had the best record, even topping Reagan.
Now the question is-which is the better path to take-Bush and his cuts or Clintons?
That is why you compare-if you ignore the results of previous administrations on the economic front-you ignore data that helps you move forward.
I say again-if the tax cuts had worked for Bush-if jobs were created to the tune of-20 million we would not be having this conversation...people would not by 2/3rds margin in most polls "favor letting the cuts expire for the upper 2%.
SO my comparisons are not to avoid the question my friend-but to answer it.

Not true….You do not know if that money was invested or not. He had the lowest unemployment during his term and as I mentioned before he set the all-time-record for revenue for the government in 2004 thru 2006. You can not do that if your unemployment is high with high job loss. Now what he should have done is cut more of the spending, that would have been the icing on the cake.

There are more people in the workforce every year as well. It is only natural that Bush had more people in the workforce than Clinton and Obama has more than Bush. All of the young people who get out of college, some retirees have to go back to work all add to the ever growing workforce in this country. So Bush’s numbers may not be to your liking but every new administration has more people added to the work force than the prior year.

No, Clinton or Bush really had nothing to do with the drop in the economy. What made the economy downfall was in the Clinton years (not picking on him) when Barney Frank and others decided that everyone in America needed a home. So these banks gave out loans to people that could not afford these homes and then on top of that you had these loans being loaned on top of the same loans. So by the time all of that fell apart Bush just happened to be in the Whitehouse.

The so called “rich” in this country earn about 18% of all income and already pay 38% of all income taxes. Obama says they need to “start” paying more. This is why I say the way to lower the debt and deficit is to lower taxes and take a chainsaw to the amount we spend. That is THE ONLY way to take back control of our destiny.

I will also add that you and I will probably disagree on a lot of these issues but what I can say is lets just wait another 2 years and see if you feel the same way.

[King Of The Whole World]

I do not recall that either but will check into it.
The way I see the Obama thing is it is nothing more than a proposal to investigate what can be done for people who can lose everything in an instant (such as the crash at Bushs end) and those people "do not have time to make it back up" they are retired and suddenly they are broke.
NO ONE is going to be forced into doing anything with their private 401ks that they do not want to do-it is not like now its mandatory to do this ....there is no proposed legislation, no huge push, nothing on the horizen.
I'm sure that Clintons proposal was in the same mold-it would be an option-not mandated. Having options, CHOICES-is a good thing.

It was going to be mandatory not an option. The republicans thru a fit and Clinton backed down.

[King Of The Whole World]

I like Twinkies by the way.

This shut down would have not happened if it wasn’t for the union. Hostess filed Chapter 11. This would allow the company to be profitable and sustainable from their creditors. This is why we have Chapter 11. After a company like this files Chapter 11 they would have been able to restructure its debt and agreements with labor unions than just shut down and people would be without a job and unpaid loans.

Well the union took a vote and they all decided they would walk out on Hostess. The CEO then said if you walk out I will shut the plants down. The union cost 650 people their jobs. I feel sorry for those people because the more people that are out of work the more the economy suffers. People think that every CEO doesn’t give two cents about their employees but its not true. I know business owners that have taken a pay cut because so they wouldn’t have to fire people, they know they have families and bills too.

I know I have heard some of the workers on news reports say those were our jobs but they were not. Hostess created those jobs, you were looking for a job and they paid you for your jobs. That is just like a service that happens when you go to the store. Someone made the product, someone delivered it and the store sold it to the consumer. The exchange is done at that point.

[KPM]

It was going to be mandatory not an option. The republicans thru a fit and Clinton backed down.

I have spent a half an hour trying to find some news story that truely gets into details of:
sources for this information beyond "unnamed" and have had little luck
I tried also to find out when and if Clinton made any statement or tried to introduce legislation on this 401k mandatory idea
and have found little other than a few mentions by "unnamed individuals"
I did find a story that claimed the legislation was about to be passed-before the 2010 Congressional Elections (and it warned people to get out and vote Republican)
Also found this snippet also from 2010:
......Reports over the last couple years have suggested that the U.S. government would move to seize traditional 401k and IRA retirement accounts by rolling them into a government managed Guaranteed Retirement Account, or GRA. For the most part, save in alternative media circles, the reports have been dismissed as nothing more than an “idea” floating around........
an idea floating around which has unnamed sources???? Hardly convincing proof of "seizing traditional 401k and IRA accounts"
I would buy the thought of giving options to retirees-but not the "seizing....."
But I will keep looking.

[KPM]

Not true….You do not know if that money was invested or not. He had the lowest unemployment during his term and as I mentioned before he set the all-time-record for revenue for the government in 2004 thru 2006. You can not do that if your unemployment is high with high job loss. Now what he should have done is cut more of the spending, that would have been the icing on the cake.

There are more people in the workforce every year as well. It is only natural that Bush had more people in the workforce than Clinton and Obama has more than Bush. All of the young people who get out of college, some retirees have to go back to work all add to the ever growing workforce in this country. So Bush’s numbers may not be to your liking but every new administration has more people added to the work force than the prior year.

No, Clinton or Bush really had nothing to do with the drop in the economy. What made the economy downfall was in the Clinton years (not picking on him) when Barney Frank and others decided that everyone in America needed a home. So these banks gave out loans to people that could not afford these homes and then on top of that you had these loans being loaned on top of the same loans. So by the time all of that fell apart Bush just happened to be in the Whitehouse.

The so called “rich” in this country earn about 18% of all income and already pay 38% of all income taxes. Obama says they need to “start” paying more. This is why I say the way to lower the debt and deficit is to lower taxes and take a chainsaw to the amount we spend. That is THE ONLY way to take back control of our destiny.

I will also add that you and I will probably disagree on a lot of these issues but what I can say is lets just wait another 2 years and see if you feel the same way.

The statistics for the articles I posted-one from the Wall Street Journal-come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which is not a branch of either party my friend.

[King Of The Whole World]

The statistics for the articles I posted-one from the Wall Street Journal-come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which is not a branch of either party my friend.

The post that I responded to was not the one from Wall Street Journal. What I responded to was your thoughts on what happened during the economic decline.

The info about income taxes, the rich, workforce numbers increase each year, the banks loaning money for houses during Clinton's years and Bush's numbers are all facts NOT my opinion.