The GOP's 'Uncertainty' Talking Point, Debunked

Not to worry... Foreign investors are not so easily swayed, from making big money, by the prospects of having to comply with regulations, or having to pay even a large percentage of their gains in taxes. They will invest, here. Of course, our own rich people will invest in those enterprises. The foreigners will own us, here, as well as there. The spirit of entrepreneurship, and risking capital (ooooh, the uncertainty), is still alive in most of the world.

Creating and promoting "class warfare" has been and continues to be the democrat's key strategic objective in hopes of keeping the White House in 2012.

"Say Yes" even when we said no before is an intentionally dis-guiding democrat political principle.

The democrats didn't create class warfare. It exists independent of them. What you are accusing the democrats of is accurately describing our economy which has shifted the overwhelming majority of wealth to the rich. In order for this economy to thrive there has to be some balance. This does not mean that the wealthy cannot be wealthy, what it means is that prosperity is spread out so that the country as a whole can prosper.

But, that is the problem. Multinational companies have no allegiance to a country, only the various coins of the realms. Profits are being taken out of this country and those dollars are not being returned and circulated. Our population is growing with more and more entrants to an increasingly scarce labor market. Retirement plans are being cut and medical premiums are going up. Property taxes are going up on properties that are decreasing in value.

In short, those on the lower end of class wParfare are getting whipped daily, and the republican answer is to make it easier for the wealthy to get wealthier so that their prosperity can trickle down. Ever get to the dinner table after everyone has eaten?

Republicans just do not understand this concept. But you are talking about a party that views FDR as the problem, not the solution. The primary reason republicans fear the government is because it is of the people, by the people and for the people. They believe that capitalism is a perfectly egalitarian system. It isn't. Clearly there are people who can overcome insurmountable odds and be successful. But, years ago, the average guy could find some type of work almost anywhere. Those days are gone forever and neither the government or business has addressed the issue. The republicans insist on finding foreign bogeymen do that we can waste more money on the military industrial complex. This keeps the big defense contractors rolling in welfare payments. Some of these republicans, while criticizing Obama for a continued presence in Iran, would welcome US involvement in a preemptive strike on Iran with Israel.
They berate Obama for the rising deficit, having been mute while Reagan drive the debt higher and Clinton reduced it to zero only to be raised by Bush.

In short, the republicans are full of contradictions, but they are consistent on one thing-their lack of concern for all Americans.

I wouldn't be sitting back on profits if I thought I could invest them and make the business grow. The "uncertainty" thing is ludicrous. If they need to fill jobs to make more profit,

I would but..... because of the uncertainty of Obama and the democrats confiscating the growth and profit of my business using it for their vote buying "spread the wealth" socialism by giving it to druggie welfare collectors claiming that they are the consumers who will save the economy is ignorant.

So in effect, Code Pink, you don't have any rational reasons for not doing so...

Allen ....

Seriously......... Nobody is going to invest their labor nor the fruit of their labor so it can be confiscated through taxation by democrats to buy votes from their backers. Would you work 60hrs. per week only to have any extra money you make from your labor re-distributed by democrats for the benefit of themselves. If what i said in 4.1 isn't the most rational reason for not working harder, expanding, and investing then I don't know what is. You are advocating socialism/communism.

shelby

right now, it is far more profitable to just churn your money on wall street than it is to actually invest it in a company. Why pay the 38% corporate tax on your corporate income when you can pay 15% on capital gains. Even if your return is lower on wall street, your tax rate is also much lower and you end up further ahead.

CODE PINK,socialism,lol. See baccchmann article. A 4% increase on the upper crust translates to socialism.

Please do enlighten us all as to how that makes this a socialist/communist nation.

I'll bet you don't think that government telling people who can and can't have sex,and how,where,and when they can have sex,or sabotaging an election as they plan to do vit valker,or arresting people for reporting the news,or telling a 50+ year state legislator repeatedly to shut up because the debate is over or...is not communism?

If that all doesn't sound like what's happening in gop majority state legislatures,also please do enlighten us...

I'm all ears and can't wait for the punchline.

With so much psychotic and sociopathic behaviors on display, isn't it obvious that the conservative movement would like become a form of acceptable mental illness?

Hoka Hey!

TPisFORtheBATHROOM101

Please do enlighten us all as to how that makes this a socialist/communist nation.

From what I gather, it was advertising the fact of it happening now. Or the want of it.

I'll bet you don't think that government telling people who can and can't have sex,and how,where,and when they can have sex,or sabotaging an election as they plan to do vit valker,or arresting people for reporting the news,or telling a 50+ year state legislator repeatedly to shut up because the debate is over or...is not communism?

If that all doesn't sound like what's happening in gop majority state legislatures,also please do enlighten us...

After all that, you just blame the Republicans? Haaha. The origonal OWS actually had it right.

original, sorry.

In the most stable of economic times there is always risk in business.

You would think that those entrepreneurial job creators would realize that.

flashypaws: Exactly! There is no uncertainty! It is a code for if the "black dude" succeeds, i.e. more people get jobs, the GOP is out on their asses!!

kinda, fred.

but what i meant is that you can literally substitute the word... um... lets say 'negro'... into john boehners speeches every time he says the word 'uncertainty'.

if you watched him, especially in the early days of the "uncertainty" campaign... he would smile and wink and emphasize the word every time he said it. he needed to do that, because otherwise his idiot constituency would have thought he meant 'uncertainty' when he said 'uncertainty'.

It's interesting that Bruce Barlett, one of Ronald Reagan's economists, recently said publicly that de-regulation will not create jobs---in fact, he called the idea that it would "made up."

Could it be that "uncertainty" is a ploy to create a lot of misery and blame it on Obama?

Here's the one thing we can all be certain of: We're all gonna die one day---hopefully not for quite a long while yet, but Your Last Day is comin.'

Exactly!!!!

The GOP's uncertainty talking point is just more of their stock in trade, FEAR!

There's also the GOP contribution to any actual uncertainty.

I'm sure the corporations have plans in place to deal with whatever changes in their tax rates would occur, including any loopholes being closed and regulations that are likely to come up. When the GOP's obstructionist BS keeps anything from being decided, that puts the corporations in a position where they don't know which plan to act on.

Consumer confidence is the number one problem. Getting people that have money to spend money is the true ignition to an economic recovery. Stimulus just makes them wait to see if the spending will have desired results, when the results fall short of expectation damage is done to consumer confidence. Give the American people a plan that will work not a plan that is simply a sales pitch to get reelected.

There is always uncertainty. That is the nature of capitalism, that is the nature of people. People are unpredictable. Our biggest uncertainty a few years ago was 'how much more are we going to have to pay for health insurance premiums next year'. Unfortunately HCR didn't correct that problem, but we went self insured which did correct it.

Regulations are the least of our concerns. Short term deficit, again least of our concerns. Rebuilding the fundamentals of our economy over the long term, BIG ISSUE, and so far the Democrats may be largely useless, but at least they aren't as reckless as the GOP is.

In fact, I can say this, with the GOP policies, it does remove uncertainty, we are certain that we are royally @!$%#ed.

Yes.

If the game has no uncertainty I can't make a wager where the odds will make me rich.. And finding a means to become instantly or at least very quickly rich has been the American Dream du jour for some time now. Not hard work, just get rich quick.

*This comment does not attempt to support or refute card carrying members of either the Socialist or Capitalist parties of America. Selah.

The uncertanty is two sided.

Consumers are uncertain that now is the moment they want to spend either because they feel they may get a better deal if they wait or because they feel it is unwise to spend just in case they need the money for something more important later.

Business are uncertain that their will be enough demand in the future to give value to the risk they would be taking if they spent capital to invest in growth of production.

However, both the consumer and the business may benefit from reducing the cost to produce. If the cost to produce is lowered the business can offer an incentive to the consumer to spend now since they could get a better price.

This could create more jobs by triggering more consumer spending and boosting demand. If the demand is affected enough, means of production would need to be expanded, and as more people are hired, it will also create additional demand

I got the idea that the article never addressed the topic of the headline.

Well, I guess you didn't even read this analysis, mhr83...

"I keep hearing that what is holding U.S. businesses back from expanding and hiring is "uncertainty." Exactly what new types of uncertainty businesses face in the current environment vs. past environments is rarely spelled out. But if, in fact, businesses are paralyzed due to uncertainty, I would not expect them to be stepping up their purchases of capital equipment. After all, capital equipment has a relatively long life. If businesses were unusually uncertain about the long-term outlook, they would be more reluctant to make longer-term commitments, which the purchase of capital equipment is. Rather, if businesses were unusually uncertain about the future, they might be more inclined to hire workers, who, after all, can be dismissed on short notice if conditions were to change suddenly.

But just the opposite seems to be happening. Business hiring remains weak and business capital spending is robust.... I would think that if abnormally-high business uncertainty prevailed today, there would have been considerably slower growth in price-adjusted purchases of nondefense capital goods than what has occurred."

Of course, the fact that businesses are investing in capital equipment while continuing not to does appear to call into some question the theory that a lack of demand is the crucial factor in explaining the employment problem. If there's no demand, why invest? I don't have a good answer to that yet, except to wonder whether long-term growth requires more capital investment regardless of fluctuating demand, while staffing up in real people can wait until absolutely necessary.

http://www.salon.com/2011/07/28/uncertainty_is_not_the_problem/

super,

There is this to look at, capital investment is actually much more cost effect at the downward part of the economic cycle. Why? because the economy is down and you are more likely to be able to get a lower price, but also you are not fully utilized so would often have spare 'cycles' to be able to implement.

There actually isn't a lot of uncertainty in the economy right now. Unfortunately it is pretty certain that the economy is going to suck for the foreseeable (at least it is going to be tough for the next 5 years or so as far as I can tell).

That actually makes hiring decisions difficult to make, but it doesn't impact capital expenditures to a large extent.

Now uncertainty that would impact capital expenditures, well that would be say an auto company supplier being uncertain if the auto industry is even going to be around in 10 years. THAT is uncertainty that would impact it.

Jonathan--Not only is it cheaper to buy capital equipment in this economy, it is also a tax write-off for small businesses who may be scrambling to pay their taxes. You can always sell the equipment later. You can't sell an employee.

laura,

I run a business, so I know the drill.

As for the cheaper, you think it is wise to spend say a million dollars on some equipment to get 300K off your tax bill?

You don't get the purchase amount taken off your taxes, you get the purchase amount taken off your taxable income.

Hiring decisions should be made based on business need, not whether you get a deduction. This is what the GOP doesn't get. Lowering my taxes (I believe the bush cuts should go away) will do NOTHING to make me hire anyone. In fact there is currently more of a tax benefit to hire someone, and I still haven't hired that many people. The business just isn't there, and we keep getting our customers unilaterally lowering the prices that they will pay for our products. Lowering the tax rate (for companies as we are a C company, personally I don't give a rats ass either way about personal income taxes) will actually discourage us from hiring because we would get a bigger financial boost by not hiring, it is just the way the numbers work in the financials.

Jonathan-Please explain to me how raising taxes would give you the incentive to hire more people. In my house for the past 3-4 years we have gotten $ back from taxes that we never paid into. We use a tax preparer that guarantees to cover us, as long as we have been honest, against an IRS audit. The reason we got $ back was because of our income level, but as poor as I am, I don't see how that's fair to those who have been able to make more. In my book, I feel like it is robbing them of what they've earned. Our governments tax set-up needs a complete overhaul. Big corporations, such as GE, who legally paid zero in income taxes last year, shouldn't be able to do that any more than I.

laura

because hiring people is a straight deduction on my taxes, it reduces my income.

My tax code right now on the other hand gives me a better return to just churn my money on wall street, which doesn't create a single job. It just moves money around. The only way that the economics work out is if the tax rates, specifically the capital gains tax, increases to the point where the income taxes for conducting business start to come together.

Remember, my company's income tax on profit (the marginal rate) is close to 40%
The tax rate for capital gains is 15%, that is a 25% difference.

As far as GE is concerned, that was a one time thing. If I incur a loss this year that goes beyond my income, the unused losses can be applied to future taxes. Companies can't get an income tax return for negative income like people can. So if you don't like GE using those losses from previous years, the only thing you can really do is to allow a company to get a tax return on negative income. People treat it as though taxes are a one year thing and they are done, well it isn't. On our taxes, we have things that have been on the books for close to 10 years now, and every year, we deduct a little bit more (this is even before we owned this company). That is called a depreciation schedule. You can't look at one year and say that it is the norm, it isn't. Although as far as Imelt is concerned, I think he is pond scum, but that is besides the point. He doesn't run the tax department of GE.

Would you be for a flat, across the board tax system?

laura,

nope, because it doesn't take into account the fact that for a low income persons, that more of their income goes to necessities. It in essence reduces my tax liability as a percentage of my non necessary expenses, and increases the tax liability of lower income individuals significantly.

The marginal tax system isn't all that complicated anyways. I really don't understand why people think that 'you pay X % on your first bit of income, Y % on your second bit of income and Z% on your third bit of income' is all that difficult to understand. It isn't.

If you want to talk about removing deductions, fine, do so, but that has nothing to do with a flat tax system.

For those who believe a "flat tax" system would be fair to the poor, I have news. It is already in place!

A person earning $8500 in income pays the same tax on that as the first $8500 of a multi-millionaire's income!

A person earning $34500 in income pays the same tax on that as the first $34500 of a multi-millionaire's income!

No matter how much you make, the millionaire pays the same tax on the same amount.

That sounds flat to me.

Sorry, bubblegum

roy, that is a marginal tax system.

A Flat tax would be something like, 'everybody pays 15% tax on all their income regardless of what that income is'.

Now I found it interesting that after I explained why the lower tax rates that we have is hurting investment, NOTHING came back from her on it, just the silly question about a flat tax.

Jonathan-You didn't explain anything to me. You just confused me, because of your contradictions.

You don't get the purchase amount taken off your taxes, you get the purchase amount taken off your taxable income.

because hiring people is a straight deduction on my taxes, it reduces my income

Wow! You're talking in circles to me. Either way you cut it your taxable income gets reduced-whether you hire someone or buy capital equipment.

My tax code right now on the other hand gives me a better return to just to churn my money on wall street

Now I found it interesting that after I explained why the lower tax rates that we have is hurting investment, NOTHING came back from her on it, just the silly question about a flat tax.

I see you've contradicted yourself. Exactly where did you explain anything about why the lower tax rates we have now are hurting investment, when you just finished saying that the tax code we have now gives you a better return on Wall Street.

Please. When someone asks a serious question, don't call it silly.

Now I found it interesting that after I explained why the lower tax rates that we have is hurting investment, NOTHING came back from her on it, just the silly question about a flat tax.

Actually, you did a good job with that, and I agree with you. When tax rates are higher it gives those with profits an incentive to lower their taxes with deductions like equipment investments and new hires. There is more value there than just handing it over to Uncle Sam.

roy, that is a marginal tax system

I know, but I'm just poking fun at the flat tax people.

laura,

That you don't understand it is precisely why the GOP talking points about lower taxes are made. They are preaching to an audience that doesn't understand the accounting aspects. What they say sounds good, but has for the last 30 years been a very negative influence on the economy. R&D is down, investing in manufacturing is down, investing in people is down. Lowering taxes is just going to make that worse, because the cause of that is the lower taxes.

My main point on this is that investing in wall street does NOTHING for creating jobs. All it does is churn money. If you buy 100K worth of IBM stock, guess how much goes to IBM? ZERO. All the money goes to the person that owned the stock at the point of you purchasing it. If you then sell that stock for 110K, IBM doesn't benefit in any way whatsoever. You do, but how does that create any jobs? The answer is that it doesn't.

The problem from a tax perspective is that people are tying their money in stocks and bonds, but in reality it does very little to create jobs, but those people pay the least amount of tax.

Right now, the tax system is structured that the people that do the least to benefit the economy, also pay the least tax. I personally would like to hire people, but on paper, it makes no sense, I make more money by investing in wall street, not creating a single job. THAT is bad for the economy because it discourages actual production of goods that does grow the economy.

What I want to see is a tax system that makes the investment in R&D, factories, people more profitable than it is for people to just churn their money on wall street, which is NOT an investment in my mind, that is just legalized gambling. (having worked in the financial industry for more than a decade, I know what goes on there).

Jonathan-You didn't explain anything to me. You just confused me, because of your contradictions.

Laura, let me take a shot at it.

You don't get the purchase amount taken off your taxes, you get the purchase amount taken off your taxable income.

because hiring people is a straight deduction on my taxes, it reduces my income

Say company XYZ makes widgets and takes in a total of $1,000,000, then pays existing staff, the rent, and all other expenses and is left over with $200,000. That is the profit and is taxable.

Let's say the corporate tax rate is 32%, that means a tax liability of $64,000. (200000x.32)

However, If I buy a piece of equipment (or hire someone) for $50,000, that leaves me with only $150,000 profit (my expenses are now $50,000 higher) Tax is now $48,000.

Additional investments reduce the basis for the tax, and are not subtracted from the tax itself.

My tax code right now on the other hand gives me a better return to just to churn my money on wall street

ABC is an investment company, all they do is play the market. Let's say like XYZ, ABC makes a profit of $200,000 at the end of the year from buying, selling and collecting dividends.

The tax rate of profits made with investing on Wall Street are capped at 15%. So the tax liability for ABC would be $30,000 (200000x.15) as opposed to $64,000 for XYZ. So for each $200,000 profit, I can keep more of it if it is investing income rather than actually "making things."

From a personal perspective it is no different. If I work for a living and make $200,000 I am clearly in the 33% tax bracket. If I am rich and make all my money off of investments my taxes are limited to 15%. Fair? You decide.

Jonathan and Roy--Thank you for responding and explaining. I think I will do more research on this. Do you have any suggestions of where to look?

not many talk about it unfortunately. The people that would understand the concept at the level I am talking about are detached from the reality of what I am talking about and basically say, what does it matter if we hire people because it is the money that matters, and the people on the other side of the issue generally just think well lower my taxes, so it becomes an endless downward cycle, and then it gets to the point where society can't sustain itself because the tax base is gone.

It really is literally a large number of sources that you need to put together. I personally spent more than a decade working in the financial industry and am now running (with my business partner) a small manufacturing outfit. So I have seen both sides.

#17.16

Jonathan and Roy--Thank you for responding and explaining.

from me too.

np.

What people don't realize is that they need to differentiate between a good tax policy and a bad tax policy, and right now, I believe that our tax policy is bad. It goes beyond what the specific tax rates are. It really does have to do with what the impact of the system is on the economy, not just short term, but also longer term.

The truth is the conservative movement for the past thirty years has consolidated so much wealth and power into the hands of the few at the expense of the many now the vast majority of what was once a strong middle class doesn't have enough money to make ends meet. Add no jobs and lousy jobs to that equation and the truth the does show it's ugly head. And I'm sure you still worship Reagan and the psychotic sociopath Anne Rand, right?

Rainbow Warrior I worship only one and that is my Saviour Jesus Christ.

Which one? The liberal Jesus or the conservative Jesus? LOL

Their is only one Jesus.

Certificate of Authenticity is needed.

Dear Laura:

Even President Obama has said such. Is your king ever wrong?

I could be wrong about this but it is just possible that your earlier comment was 'collapsed' because some of these 'liberals' [whatever that is] took aforesaid remark as an aspersion? I'm sure it wasn't meant that way, but some silly people may have read that as an intentionally derogative remarks. If so, well ... that could do it.

Apparently, a lot of the people in OWS think there is uncertainty also.

Some in the OWS movement have found certainty that fiduciary irresponsibility, derivatives market traders, Wall Street Speculators and hedge fund managers are no friends of the federal state.

Wake up people!

I think they are. That's what you're seeing at OWS. And it's just beginning. It will be really interesting to see what happens as this momentum builds toward the next election. It occurs to me that if November 2012 saw a nation-wide General Strike, with masses of people occupying polling stations, police stations and court houses everywhere, effecting shutting down electoral process and forcing a constitutional crisis, that would certainly constitute a 'wake-up call' to the status quo. I'm not recommending it at this point, but it is very much deserved.

You can't get a job from a poor man.

Or from the wealthy for that matter. The fact that corporations sit on many times the cash reserves as the Federal Reserve (and send much of that abroad) is why people will start demanding the retention of national sovereignty in economics. The system is presently gamed in the hope that the masses can be reduced to a pack of wild dogs, fighting to the death for a bite of the hamburger-sized economy our Caesar-patrons toss over the fence. Why should we agree?

To blame it all on Wall Street is stupid in itself.

Really? And why is that? It certainly wasn't the poor that precipitated the disaster of '08. And it wasn't the shrinking middle class that bailed out the investment class.

Blame some of it on them ...

I'll blame much on them.

but a big portion of the BS is coming from our government.

Precisely because the state surrendered United States sovereignty in economics to private interests, corporations and the investment class. In other words, it happened because government buckled to the fascistic right.

Congress was warned of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2006, but did nothing about it.

Like I said. And like the right said. God forbid that we regulate our economy or enforce laws, such as RICO ...

The housing market crashed, then the domino effect of the stock market crash, etc.

The stock market didn't crash. But it took serious hits. Moreover, we reverted to exactly the SAME practices that produced this crisis in the first place. In other words, we learned absolutely nothing. The fascistic right's premise of utopia through the same deregulation that licensed national pillage still stands.

Both sides of the aisle played a part in this mess,

Which is why neither is part of the solution. Therefore, another approach is required.

so we need to quit playing the blame game

The fascistic right has another game? I'm impressed! I thought that was all they had!

and start working to fix it.

Hence, the world-wide Occupy movement ...

Herman Cain can help us to do that.

If Herman will pick up an OWS sign and join the movement, so will I. I'll come and shake Herman's hand and we can occupy together.

On another matter, you seriously need to reconsider your above remarks concerning your faith. The church in North America is essentially where the Russian Orthodox Church was on the eve of the October Revolution. it was devoted to the preservation of the status quo order. It had no spiritual power to serve as the presence of Christ in the world. And like that church, the church in North America is beset by two problems. One is the fact that it is in theological apostasy, having surrendered to the Manichean heresy. The other is that it is in a state of general collapse.

United States 'Christians' are too theologically illiterate to realize that they are no true church whatsoever. It has cast out [note the implication of exorcism] Jesus Christ when, in the name of 'standing on their own, two feet,' it tells the poor, naked, hungry, oppressed, diseased, widows and aged to sell themselves into slavery to our 'economic fiefdom.' There is no church in North America. North American Christians can't save Jesus from narcissism of their own, self-serving, self-centered, wealth-obsessed, nationalistic, militaristic, materialistic, hedonistic and profligate beyond redemption culture.

I realize that this is quite a slap coming from another Christian believer, but there it is. And do you know -- I'm not alone. Take some time to read Stanley Hauerwas, one of the few [VERY few] theologians in the United States. Hauerwas understands that the nation itself has been reduced to a political cult in which state violence [war, oppression, injustice] are offered up as sacrifices for salvation in the place of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps you need to revisit what I might very mistakenly have taken as a somewhat flippant reply to the above question, 'which Jesus.' It is the right question. And it matters. I'm sorry if this comes off as being a bit overbearing. But if you care for Christ's body at all and have one clue about the gigantic fraud that the North American church is, you tend to run that hazard.

In closing, Laura, I suggest you ponder the council of lay theologian, the late William Stringfellow, who told us to read America Biblically, instead of reading the Bible Americanly.

Have a good one!

But Village,

It was us poor who forced those banks to gives us a little loan or two,

or three... some with floating interest rates...

and a few in areas where housing was already 200% above normal for earnings..

against the monthly mortgage payment that is..

..and with no real down payment..

.. or collateral. ..

..

Really..

..

it was.

But now I'm uncertain again.

Dear Big Finance and Big Banks:

We po' folk understand that fiduciary responsibility isn't to be expected of the ethically challenged. In case you missed it, one day last week, hundreds of thousands of us extracted our meagre savings and entrusted them to credit unions. Hoping this helps ...

Village Idiot

PS: Why bother the cops when we arrive at your doors to close out our accounts? They don't need this.

#18.7

It used to be you worked for thirty years and, at about the same time that you were due to be retired, you would have also paid-off your mortgage. Constant re-financing reset the pay-off date, each time, to another 30 years, so that now many retirees face, as their biggest liability, what was once their biggest asset, (keeping up the payments on) their homes.

I am happy that I cashed in some of my retirement accounts early, despite the penalties, to pay off some debts, before the value of those accounts dropped.

The problem with our individual economies is the same as that of the nation: too much debt. However, it is that debt that gave us a constantly expanding economy.

One by-product of a knowledge-fueled economy, "one man's capacity to farm, from a small plot (with a mule and wooden plow) to many hundred acres", is that the future does not hold enough labor to employ everyone.

Without credit, we cannot have an always expanding economy. Without the ever-expanding economy, the limited wealth simply circulates: for someone to win (buy low, sell high), some one else must lose (the one sold high).

Wonder what a steady-state economy would look like? Think Mayberry, RFD. No one would make $100 million bonus. What limited work there is to spread among the population would be shared: you might need 6-weeks mandatory vacation per year, and there might be a lot of leisure even on the job.

More than 30 year of wrecking the economy and you expect it to be fixed in 4/8 years. You've got to be kidding. From socks to in between though wind turbines, solar panels and part of the dreamliner, even some parts our modern weaponery are made in China. Our hope is very, very slim if we don't put our heads together.

concerned,

but neither of those items are in the control of the president. He can suggest, he can pout, he can raise his voice, but if congress doesn't pass the laws, then it isn't going to happen.