Obama Wants Jobs After What He Done??

[Guest]

President Obama has said that job creation is job one - fair enough. In the same speech he said American Industry should stop cuttings costs by becoming more productive. If you can find a way to improve productivity by having one person do the work that previously required two, he is against it. The man is a modern day Luddite.

If he actually wants to create jobs he can do three things to get the economy rolling again:

1. Kill this monstrosity of a healthcare bill that will immediately raise taxes and provide no benefit until 2013 at the earliest.
2. Kill cap and trade and do not go to Copenhagen.
3. Immediately reduce taxes on businesses, Bussiness creates jobs and wealth, government cannot.

For those of you who believe that unions and liberal policies are good for the United States, go look at Detroit, now a third world city but in 1950, the richest city in the world.

[Guest]

Problem is, he doesn't want to create jobs. If he did he's do those three things. Companies are scared to death of what he's doing and about to do. They are holding back hiring because they know they are going to get hammered in taxes and new regulation. His so called job summit was a joke and a sham. Obama is a job killer not a job creator.

[Guest]

Let us say that his intentions are honorable. His senior advisor's do not have any real life experience. They are ideologues, academics, life long politicians.

We're doomed.

Yoda:ohdear:

[Guest]

Doomed is too light a word Yoda. The only thing that differentiates us from the Titanic, is that they had a band!

[Guest]

predictably, political and script oriented only. That means he will say (and sound as if he intends to "do") what ever creates the appearance of the political requirement for the given subject of the moment. Then on to the next one. No more depth than that. No follow up. No accountability. Hen no accomplishment.

Absolutely correct that not a one of his administration (ditto for all that preceded him) is a businessman (non-gender specific term). There is absolutely no connection with the reality of the elements of an income statement and what it takes to move the numbers in one direction or another. NONE WHAT SO EVER!!!!!!!!

In the last week I have heard he does not favor productivity, in one form or another. Example used of one person doing the job of two. Also in the past week it has been decided Washington will begin farming in contract work. You know the cost improvements that were put in place to reduce costs by farming out the work to a third party. And now by some some stroke of the Obama wand it has been determined that by farming in the work and putting thousands back on the government payroll is more efficient and cost up to one third less than the contractors. Let me see you get credit for a savings by farming it out. And then you get even more savings by farming it back in.

Business acumen? NONE WHAT SO EVER!!! Words....deception... feel good messages...complete lack of reality.

In corporate America there is not one politician in Washington who would have kept their job for this year's performance (lack of it....results....accomplishments.....that manifest in the bottom line).

Politicians and intellectuals do not get the work of performance improvement done. There will be no jobs until such time as business begins to expand and demand for local products and services increases. That is not going to happen while uncertainty is the only by product of the current direction. As for small gains at the moment? That is simply a funnction of the American people saying to hell with all the doom and gloom....it is the CHRISTMAS season and we are gonna enjoy it. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with what any politician would like to claim they did to make it happen.

Job summit? :blahblahblah::blahblahblah:barf

btk

[Guest]

I can give you an example of "farming in".

My job just might be "farmed in".

Here's the situation now. I work for a defense contractor. They have a contract with the USAF Materiel Command to provide services and I'm one of the people covered by that contract.

When I first took this job, I worked for a contracting agency that farmed me out to the defense contractor. After 6 months, I became a full-time employee of the defense contractor - cutting the agency out of the loop. The effect on me? a $5K salary cut BUT I got benefits - health insurance was now affordable (due to a company contribution) and I got matching contributions to a 401k. On the negative side, their 'time off' policy was wickedly misrepresented to me so the salary hit cost me more than I thought it would (since I had far less paid time off than I'd originally figured) and I only found that out a few weeks ago. Of course the cut I took taking this job originally was that I had the same hourly rate as my previous job but now had triple the commute and now had to pay MA state income tax. ..and THAT job was a cut from a previous one at the same rate that had me billing some overtime.

Now I was shown what the pay scales were for where someone was guessing the job's "rate" would land (GS-12).

I'm making somwhat more than the top of that scale (if what I saw was accurate).

Right now, the defense contractor is billing me out to the government at a rate that originally included the overhead from the contracting agency.

The government could save a lot of money, I'm guessing, by hiring me directly (though I'd have to be at least one grade higher than was 'guessed at').

By the same token, the cleaning crews in this building are probably a lot cheaper than civilian employees doing the same thing.

So that's how you have it both ways. It really depends on the job that's being done.