Economy
CEO's Have No Intentions of Hiring
29-Sep-09 06:32 PM
Yet another article today outlining the fact that some of America's CEO's have no plans to increase hiring despite the fact that the economy appears to be on the upswing. No, they say that even if their sales increase that it will be at least a 12 to 18 months lag before they would make any comittments to start hiring people. CEO's of companies and corporations can just increase the work load on their already under-staffed employees and get them to produce more output without the expense of re-hiring displaced workers.
Personally, I have just about lost all faith in our current system. CEO's are charged with keeping their companies healthy, turning profits, and providing ever increasing wealth for their stockholders and investors. People and employees are only a means to an end to achieve this and they are as expendable and worthless as a loose collection of nuts and bolts and odds and ends needed to temporarily patch something together. The problem, and I am generalizing, is that CEO's of major corporations and businesses today have lost sight of the human factor and have no sight of a moral compass whatsoever. They've lost sight of the fact that one of the main reasons their businesses are not growing and have slow sales is because their customers (their employees) have been kicked to the gutter so they can maintain their ever increasing profit margins with as little discomfort to them as possible. How do they expect sales to begin growing again if people continue to get laid off? Do they not understand that by providing a job to those out of work that it will in turn provide increased sales and activity to their own businesses? Has our society and our culture become so corrupt and greedy that we have now rationalized and accepted the costs of the human suffering and despair as simply the means to an end of keeping our capitalist empires in place? For what gain or purpose does this serve except for the very privileged, wealthy few? What more do businesses want in terms of incentives and perks from the government to encourage them to do business? No taxes at all? Free reign with no regulations or rules of any kind to make an extra dollar by any means possible regardless of the moral or legal ramifications trampled in the process?
As a hard working American professional who has worked my entire life and have strived for the American dream and the desire to provide for my family and my retirement, I am truly disgusted by what I currently see in this country in the form of corporate America. Their inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for the country and the people is disturbing. They rail and complain against any moves by the government to control their actions as unfair and as socialist, yet they are the first ones in line seeking "socialist" handouts for themselves when they fail. They are hypocritical and their only interest is making more money for themselves- at any cost or expense - no matter what they might have to do to obtain it. They have kicked the American worker to the gutter one too many times and many of us are being forced to survive outside the walls of their gleaming ivory towers and I am beginning to care less if those towers crumble. We have truly lost our way if we can't see that there is something wrong with this picture.
|
Evil (c)ommunism
07-Sep-09 11:27 AM
As the health care reform debates have heated in this country, I have heard repeated usages of both the words "socialist/socialism" and "communist/communism" to describe the health care reform that President Obama is trying to enact. As if socialism and communism were somehow inherently evil systems but capitalism is completely pure and good. I have also heard those denouncing the plan saying it is "forcing" them to help people against their will and that it is unfair because it increases the tax burden on those who work and redistributes it to those who don't (i.e. lazy people is what is implied). And then I see comments by those who are religious and attempt to use scripture to denounce the health care reform legislation. Namely, the one that I've seen used is 2 Thessolonias 3:3-14 which instructs Christians not to associate themselves with people who are "idle" (i.e. lazy people who refuse to work is implied by those who use this scripture).
You have to be careful when you start trying to use scriptures to back one particular theory. I suppose there is a scripture somewhere that can be pulled to represent almost any ideology or principle you can think of. I do find it interesting that quite often those who protest the loudest against socialist or communist ideals are also the ones who claim to be either religious or Christian. They seem to make such claims as though they are totally unaware of the principles and values that founders of the Christian religion embraced. These values were practiced by the apostles and the early church. According to the book of Acts, the early Christian church clearly practiced a form of communism (that is with a small "c" not a capital "C" - there is a big difference between the two). The apostles established a system whereby all early Christians sold their possessions and wealth and gave it to them for redistribution to the community for the common good of everyone. This was also consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the examples he used to suggest followers should give up their personal wealth and give it to the poor. This was obviously not a Marxist form of Communism which promoted class warfare, but it was an economic form of communism that was based on communal and equal ownership of those in society for the common good of every man - not just the poor.
Acts 2:42, 44, and 45:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)
The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)
I find it peculiar how people tend to conveniently overlook this bit of history and are so quick to label the idea of programs designed to use tax money for the common good of society as something that is evil and should be abhorred. I am not trying to promote communism. Neither am I trying to blur the lines between separation of church and state by suggesting that government should engage in health care reform because it is a Christian principle. I am only pointing out the fact that communistic, socialistic and capitalistic principles are not inherently evil in and of themselves. They become evil when people begin to abuse the power and allow corruption to dictate the policies. Corruption happens in all systems and occurs with the abuse and misuse of power. But the idea of everyone giving generously to help the whole community is clearly a value and a principle that was practiced by the early Christian church. I would also note that even though our Constitution requires a separation of church and state, this only applies to sectarian considerations. That is to say, it is to prevent the government from showing favortism to one particular sect of religion over another. It in no way requires a divorce of morality from government. A government must be moral if it is to do good, but it does not have to promote a particular religion in order to be moral. The US is the only industrialized rich nation in the world that does not have a system in place to provide for and take care of it's people's health care system. To me that speaks volumes of where our priorities have been misplaced.
You have to be careful when you start trying to use scriptures to back one particular theory. I suppose there is a scripture somewhere that can be pulled to represent almost any ideology or principle you can think of. I do find it interesting that quite often those who protest the loudest against socialist or communist ideals are also the ones who claim to be either religious or Christian. They seem to make such claims as though they are totally unaware of the principles and values that founders of the Christian religion embraced. These values were practiced by the apostles and the early church. According to the book of Acts, the early Christian church clearly practiced a form of communism (that is with a small "c" not a capital "C" - there is a big difference between the two). The apostles established a system whereby all early Christians sold their possessions and wealth and gave it to them for redistribution to the community for the common good of everyone. This was also consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the examples he used to suggest followers should give up their personal wealth and give it to the poor. This was obviously not a Marxist form of Communism which promoted class warfare, but it was an economic form of communism that was based on communal and equal ownership of those in society for the common good of every man - not just the poor.
Acts 2:42, 44, and 45:
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (King James Version)
The theme is reiterated in Acts 4:32-37:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet. (King James Version)
I find it peculiar how people tend to conveniently overlook this bit of history and are so quick to label the idea of programs designed to use tax money for the common good of society as something that is evil and should be abhorred. I am not trying to promote communism. Neither am I trying to blur the lines between separation of church and state by suggesting that government should engage in health care reform because it is a Christian principle. I am only pointing out the fact that communistic, socialistic and capitalistic principles are not inherently evil in and of themselves. They become evil when people begin to abuse the power and allow corruption to dictate the policies. Corruption happens in all systems and occurs with the abuse and misuse of power. But the idea of everyone giving generously to help the whole community is clearly a value and a principle that was practiced by the early Christian church. I would also note that even though our Constitution requires a separation of church and state, this only applies to sectarian considerations. That is to say, it is to prevent the government from showing favortism to one particular sect of religion over another. It in no way requires a divorce of morality from government. A government must be moral if it is to do good, but it does not have to promote a particular religion in order to be moral. The US is the only industrialized rich nation in the world that does not have a system in place to provide for and take care of it's people's health care system. To me that speaks volumes of where our priorities have been misplaced.
GOP Wrong About Government Spending
27-Mar-09 09:37 AM
An interesting story appeared on NPR today regarding the new Obama administration budget and the Republican response that has been generated. The full article can be read here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102410826
Here are some excerpts from the article that I would like to comment on:
“While President Obama's proposed budget rolls through the House and Senate, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan is one of the key lawmakers putting together an alternative plan.
As the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, he will be the one to deliver that plan to the House floor next week. On Thursday, House Republicans released an 18-page pamphlet, "The Republican Road to Recovery," which outlines their break with the president's budget goals.
"We don't think it's right to impose a $1.9 trillion tax increase on our economy during a recession, so we're not going to raise taxes," Ryan tells NPR's Renee Montagne. "No. 2, we don't think it's right to have a huge slew of borrowing — they're doubling our national debt in five and half years, tripling it in just over 10 years. So we think we need to focus on controlling spending and reforming government...
Ryan has referred to the budget plan as "the third and great final wave of government expansion, building on the Great Society and the New Deal." He says there's "probably truth" to the idea that some Americans might think comparisons to the New Deal are good thing — "because that's what President Obama is saying about his budget — that's what the administration is saying is that this is the most sweeping and transformative budget since the New Deal. They probably believe that that's what people want."
But Ryan says unemployment during the New Deal ranged from 12 to 25 percent. "Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary, came to the Ways and Means Committee at the end of that period and said, 'This was a disaster.' It didn't work. We borrowed so much money; we ran up the debt. We didn't get out of the Depression until World War II came along."...”
First of all, I commend the Republican Congressman for at least taking the time to come up with a proposal for consideration as opposed to just objecting and not offering anything in return. This is how government is supposed to work. We can all agree that we don't always agree, but if you are going to be in opposition to the majority then offer a viable plan that offers a different solution. The majority must also be willing to allow the minority to speak and to hear their ideas. If they do not, then that is just as bad.
That said, however, the information Mr. Ryan presents regarding the Great Depression is not completely accurate. Based upon my own research of the subject here is what I've learned.
Unemployment hit a high of 25% before the New Deal was implemented by the FDR administration. Looking at the historical economic data of the period, right after the implementation of the New Deal, unemployment rates began to fall and the Gross National Product of the Country immediately went from a steep downward trend to spiking upward. Unemployment was reduced down to around 12%, or was cut in half. While 12% is still very high, how can anyone say that cutting unemployment in half is not successful? How can growth in GDP not be considered successful? Unemployment leveled up to around 12% at the start of World War II and by the end of the war the country was out of the depression and unemployment was around 3%.
I always laugh when I hear fiscal conservatives like Ryan dismiss the idea of the government spending money during hard economic times as "not necessary" and that it "doesn't work" and then proceed to try and use the example of the New Deal program and the start of the war as proof. Both instances prove the exact opposite. Whether you are talking about the New Deal program or whether you are talking about the onset of World War II, the net result of both of these events was INCREASED government spending and that's what ended the depression. Whether the government is spending money building dams, roads or buildings to put people to work, or whether they are building tanks, airplanes and munitions and training millions of soldiers to fight a war, is completely irrelevant; it is still government spending and that is what ended the Great Depression. So, there is absolutely no logic to the argument to say the New Deal didn't end the depression - World War II did. What's the difference?
Also, most economists agree that the New Deal would've been even more successful if not for one interesting point. FDR's treasury secretary would not allow the funding for the New Deal programs in the regular budget. Instead, the spending came out of an emergency spending budget and during the entire implementation of the New Deal the FDR administration was attempting to also balance the budget at the behest of the Treasury Secretary. Instead of focusing 100% on the current need, others were forcing pressure that helped negate some of the effects of the programs. Morgenthau was opposed to the New Deal from the very beginning and so it is not surprising that he would say negative things about it, even in the light of the economic data that showed something entirely different. Had Morgenthau not been involved, it is possible the New Deal might have ended the Depression before the start of the war.
For Ryan and the GOP to stand up now and oppose the idea of raising much needed revenues by modest tax increases on the wealthiest people in the country is beyond reasonable and is irresponsible. The fact is, regardless of your politics, it was the government that came to the rescue to save our stock market from this current financial meltdown. It will be the strength of our government that will continue to help pull us out and it will be the strength of our government that will formulate the much needed regulatory checks and balances to keep things in sync. We must reject as false the ideology that the markets can regulate themselves and that the government should be continually reduced and downsized. This has been the GOP plan all along and is the primary basis of their continued insistence of permanent tax cuts and the gutting of our regulatory systems. Given the current wars, the continued financial involvement needed due to the corruption on Wall Street, and the immediate need for health care reform (data now shows that 4 in 5 people without health care insurance either have jobs or in families who have jobs - yet they are still uninsured), the idea of asking the wealthiest among us to contribute more to the common good for the country and to their fellow citizen is not asking too much. People will still be wealthy and very well off even after the modest tax increases. No matter what alternative plan the GOP comes up with, I doubt that it can muster the necessary resources needed to keep this ship afloat. I think we can all agree that some spending will have to be curtailed, but we must also wake up and realize that additional monies will also need to be raised. Those are the harsh realities we need to come to understand. It is time to leave strict ideologies behind and to embrace pragmatic solutions that will keep our country and it’s people strong.
Here are some excerpts from the article that I would like to comment on:
“While President Obama's proposed budget rolls through the House and Senate, Wisconsin Republican Rep. Paul Ryan is one of the key lawmakers putting together an alternative plan.
As the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, he will be the one to deliver that plan to the House floor next week. On Thursday, House Republicans released an 18-page pamphlet, "The Republican Road to Recovery," which outlines their break with the president's budget goals.
"We don't think it's right to impose a $1.9 trillion tax increase on our economy during a recession, so we're not going to raise taxes," Ryan tells NPR's Renee Montagne. "No. 2, we don't think it's right to have a huge slew of borrowing — they're doubling our national debt in five and half years, tripling it in just over 10 years. So we think we need to focus on controlling spending and reforming government...
Ryan has referred to the budget plan as "the third and great final wave of government expansion, building on the Great Society and the New Deal." He says there's "probably truth" to the idea that some Americans might think comparisons to the New Deal are good thing — "because that's what President Obama is saying about his budget — that's what the administration is saying is that this is the most sweeping and transformative budget since the New Deal. They probably believe that that's what people want."
But Ryan says unemployment during the New Deal ranged from 12 to 25 percent. "Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary, came to the Ways and Means Committee at the end of that period and said, 'This was a disaster.' It didn't work. We borrowed so much money; we ran up the debt. We didn't get out of the Depression until World War II came along."...”
First of all, I commend the Republican Congressman for at least taking the time to come up with a proposal for consideration as opposed to just objecting and not offering anything in return. This is how government is supposed to work. We can all agree that we don't always agree, but if you are going to be in opposition to the majority then offer a viable plan that offers a different solution. The majority must also be willing to allow the minority to speak and to hear their ideas. If they do not, then that is just as bad.
That said, however, the information Mr. Ryan presents regarding the Great Depression is not completely accurate. Based upon my own research of the subject here is what I've learned.
Unemployment hit a high of 25% before the New Deal was implemented by the FDR administration. Looking at the historical economic data of the period, right after the implementation of the New Deal, unemployment rates began to fall and the Gross National Product of the Country immediately went from a steep downward trend to spiking upward. Unemployment was reduced down to around 12%, or was cut in half. While 12% is still very high, how can anyone say that cutting unemployment in half is not successful? How can growth in GDP not be considered successful? Unemployment leveled up to around 12% at the start of World War II and by the end of the war the country was out of the depression and unemployment was around 3%.
I always laugh when I hear fiscal conservatives like Ryan dismiss the idea of the government spending money during hard economic times as "not necessary" and that it "doesn't work" and then proceed to try and use the example of the New Deal program and the start of the war as proof. Both instances prove the exact opposite. Whether you are talking about the New Deal program or whether you are talking about the onset of World War II, the net result of both of these events was INCREASED government spending and that's what ended the depression. Whether the government is spending money building dams, roads or buildings to put people to work, or whether they are building tanks, airplanes and munitions and training millions of soldiers to fight a war, is completely irrelevant; it is still government spending and that is what ended the Great Depression. So, there is absolutely no logic to the argument to say the New Deal didn't end the depression - World War II did. What's the difference?
Also, most economists agree that the New Deal would've been even more successful if not for one interesting point. FDR's treasury secretary would not allow the funding for the New Deal programs in the regular budget. Instead, the spending came out of an emergency spending budget and during the entire implementation of the New Deal the FDR administration was attempting to also balance the budget at the behest of the Treasury Secretary. Instead of focusing 100% on the current need, others were forcing pressure that helped negate some of the effects of the programs. Morgenthau was opposed to the New Deal from the very beginning and so it is not surprising that he would say negative things about it, even in the light of the economic data that showed something entirely different. Had Morgenthau not been involved, it is possible the New Deal might have ended the Depression before the start of the war.
For Ryan and the GOP to stand up now and oppose the idea of raising much needed revenues by modest tax increases on the wealthiest people in the country is beyond reasonable and is irresponsible. The fact is, regardless of your politics, it was the government that came to the rescue to save our stock market from this current financial meltdown. It will be the strength of our government that will continue to help pull us out and it will be the strength of our government that will formulate the much needed regulatory checks and balances to keep things in sync. We must reject as false the ideology that the markets can regulate themselves and that the government should be continually reduced and downsized. This has been the GOP plan all along and is the primary basis of their continued insistence of permanent tax cuts and the gutting of our regulatory systems. Given the current wars, the continued financial involvement needed due to the corruption on Wall Street, and the immediate need for health care reform (data now shows that 4 in 5 people without health care insurance either have jobs or in families who have jobs - yet they are still uninsured), the idea of asking the wealthiest among us to contribute more to the common good for the country and to their fellow citizen is not asking too much. People will still be wealthy and very well off even after the modest tax increases. No matter what alternative plan the GOP comes up with, I doubt that it can muster the necessary resources needed to keep this ship afloat. I think we can all agree that some spending will have to be curtailed, but we must also wake up and realize that additional monies will also need to be raised. Those are the harsh realities we need to come to understand. It is time to leave strict ideologies behind and to embrace pragmatic solutions that will keep our country and it’s people strong.
My Letter To President Obama
15-Mar-09 09:10 PM
As many of you will know, AIG announced this weekend that they were going to go ahead and payout hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds as bonuses to some of their employees. They are doing this in-spite of the tremendous outcry from the public and their demands that these bonuses not be paid. AIG has chosen to ignore the will of the people who have given this money and are continuing ahead with no regard to the outcry against this behavior. As a result, I have written to President Obama urging him to take whatever actions he may legally take to curtail this abuse of tax payer money. I encourage each of you to do the same. If you are currently doing business with AIG I would encourage you to cancel your business dealings with them. America should completely boycott this greedy, unethical and immoral corporation until it bleeds to death. We should also demand full repayment of ALL of the federal bail out money to be paid back to the US government where the money can be used to help those who are in desperate need of help. Please, do your part - this is important. You can write to President Obama at this link.
-----------------------
President Obama:
I am writing to express my complete disgust and disapproval of how AIG is continuing with their plans to use the federal bailout money to pay their nefarious bonuses. I will keep this very brief and to the point. This angers me greatly and I fully expect you and Congress to do everything within your power to stop this misuse of our tax dollars. We are not idiots and we know that the funds that were given out were for the primary purpose of keeping people employed and getting the markets functioning again.
There is no way I can believe for a second the stories being proffered by AIG as the justification for this breach of trust. These are extraordinarily difficult times for millions of Americans who are struggling to survive. It is inexcusable and unconscionable for this kind of activity to be happening in front of our very eyes; not to mention what may be happening behind closed doors and unreported. Please, Mr. President, address this issue openly and publicly and do anything within your power to stop this abuse and misuse of the public funds that were given in good faith, but which are now being recklessly abused.
The change we seek will not be born easily and will not be wrested from the hands who desperately cling to the manacles of corruption. I am but one voice but I speak for tens of thousands who agree with me - please do what you can and please continue to address this issue with all other corporations and businesses who would seek to destroy the good will and the prosperity of the American people. Thank you for your time and thank you for having the courage and the decency to call these unethical actions shameful and wrong.
With all my support.
-TD3k
-----------------------
President Obama:
I am writing to express my complete disgust and disapproval of how AIG is continuing with their plans to use the federal bailout money to pay their nefarious bonuses. I will keep this very brief and to the point. This angers me greatly and I fully expect you and Congress to do everything within your power to stop this misuse of our tax dollars. We are not idiots and we know that the funds that were given out were for the primary purpose of keeping people employed and getting the markets functioning again.
There is no way I can believe for a second the stories being proffered by AIG as the justification for this breach of trust. These are extraordinarily difficult times for millions of Americans who are struggling to survive. It is inexcusable and unconscionable for this kind of activity to be happening in front of our very eyes; not to mention what may be happening behind closed doors and unreported. Please, Mr. President, address this issue openly and publicly and do anything within your power to stop this abuse and misuse of the public funds that were given in good faith, but which are now being recklessly abused.
The change we seek will not be born easily and will not be wrested from the hands who desperately cling to the manacles of corruption. I am but one voice but I speak for tens of thousands who agree with me - please do what you can and please continue to address this issue with all other corporations and businesses who would seek to destroy the good will and the prosperity of the American people. Thank you for your time and thank you for having the courage and the decency to call these unethical actions shameful and wrong.
With all my support.
-TD3k