“Business demand is what drives hiring."--Jeffery Braverman, owner of Nutsonline, in recent New York Times article
How do you create demand when people are unemployed? People need jobs to earn income, and you need people to have income in order to increase consumption, and you need consumption in the economy in order for businesses to experience demand. It's all cyclical.
The preliminary verdict on Obama's job creation plan, aka the American Jobs Act, is that it won't make a big dent in the unemployment rate. Cutting payroll taxes might cause employers across industries to "hire at the margins," because the monetary incentive provided just isn't enough...and a substantial number of jobs under the plan would be in the education (i.e. teachers who don't have to be laid off because of government support) and construction/transportation/infrastructure sectors. Unemployed white-collar, college-graduated people are probably looking over this, scratching their head and thinking, what part of the plan addresses my situation? Unless they're willing to become a construction worker (assuming they'll be hired) or have some sort of IT background, have worked or have an interest in the energy sector, or are looking to become certified in a healthcare sector job...three of the industries in the US predicted to grow in the near future.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Monday, May 2, 2011
Irrational Exuberance?
Many Americans are rejoicing in Osama bin Laden's death and seeing it as a significant blow to Al Qaeda's operations. The media is spinning it as pivotal in the war against terror. Political analysts foresee it as being a big chip for Obama's reelection efforts. Basically, the optimism--though guarded somewhat with announcements that the national security team continues to be vigilant against possible retribution by Al Qaeda--is overwhelming. While I think it's definitely a milestone in helping the US in its fight against terrorism, I find myself wondering how important bin Laden has become to the Al Qaeda movement, especially after reading this article by The Economist.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/clausewitz/2011/05/osama_bin_laden&fsrc=nwl
bin Laden was definitely everywhere post-9/11--on the front of newspapers, magazines, TV channels, etc. Everyone was probing into his background, his origins, how he came to be the number one leader of the largest contemporary ideological movement against the West. But as the years passed, as he became more elusive to military agencies, and the search for him became sidetracked by the war in Iraq, his name faded into relative obscurity, with occasional pop-ups of videos he released of himself denouncing the US and the West. I honestly don't think he made a front page news headline in mainstream media recently, until two nights ago when he was dealt his ultimate fate.
Is bin Laden's death really a monumental blow to Al Qaeda? Or are Americans being prematurely celebratory and equating his death to something more than it should be? I'm not an expert on the matter, so what I say shouldn't be taken seriously. But as someone observing the happenings of terrorists that have made headlines in recent years, it seems like radical Islam has become something bigger than Al Qaeda proper. The Underwear Bomber, the tragic train explosion in London a few years ago, the attempted blowing up of Times Square in New York, are all events in recent years that didn't directly have bin Laden's name attached to them. Terrorist acts led by fundamentalists dot the globe--the mainstream media in the US just don't report them. The Philippines, Indonesia, Central Asia, Western Africa--these are all places where I've at least scanned a news article about terrorism being a security issue. It seems like the terrorist network has organically and legitimately taken on a life of its own. It's surpassed Al Qaeda, and if that's the case then it's definitely carried on, with or without bin Laden.
I think it would be really interesting to see what people who belong to the anti-West pro-fundamentalist Islamic movement are thinking about bin Laden's death. I read an article reporting on comments made in internet forums and there's been a whole range of responses. Some were angry and grieving while others thought that bin Laden was replaceable--'it should be easy,' I remember reading.
I can foresee complacency toward the strength and willpower of the terrorist network now that bin Laden--a symbolic figurehead of the West's worst enemy--has been killed. If it's true, I think that might be more dangerous than when he was alive.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/clausewitz/2011/05/osama_bin_laden&fsrc=nwl
bin Laden was definitely everywhere post-9/11--on the front of newspapers, magazines, TV channels, etc. Everyone was probing into his background, his origins, how he came to be the number one leader of the largest contemporary ideological movement against the West. But as the years passed, as he became more elusive to military agencies, and the search for him became sidetracked by the war in Iraq, his name faded into relative obscurity, with occasional pop-ups of videos he released of himself denouncing the US and the West. I honestly don't think he made a front page news headline in mainstream media recently, until two nights ago when he was dealt his ultimate fate.
Is bin Laden's death really a monumental blow to Al Qaeda? Or are Americans being prematurely celebratory and equating his death to something more than it should be? I'm not an expert on the matter, so what I say shouldn't be taken seriously. But as someone observing the happenings of terrorists that have made headlines in recent years, it seems like radical Islam has become something bigger than Al Qaeda proper. The Underwear Bomber, the tragic train explosion in London a few years ago, the attempted blowing up of Times Square in New York, are all events in recent years that didn't directly have bin Laden's name attached to them. Terrorist acts led by fundamentalists dot the globe--the mainstream media in the US just don't report them. The Philippines, Indonesia, Central Asia, Western Africa--these are all places where I've at least scanned a news article about terrorism being a security issue. It seems like the terrorist network has organically and legitimately taken on a life of its own. It's surpassed Al Qaeda, and if that's the case then it's definitely carried on, with or without bin Laden.
I think it would be really interesting to see what people who belong to the anti-West pro-fundamentalist Islamic movement are thinking about bin Laden's death. I read an article reporting on comments made in internet forums and there's been a whole range of responses. Some were angry and grieving while others thought that bin Laden was replaceable--'it should be easy,' I remember reading.
I can foresee complacency toward the strength and willpower of the terrorist network now that bin Laden--a symbolic figurehead of the West's worst enemy--has been killed. If it's true, I think that might be more dangerous than when he was alive.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Wow, Obama was Born in the US? What a Surprise!
http://www.slate.com/id/2292303
Wow, Donald, congratulations. If you do decide to run for the presidency at least you can use this as proof that you CAN get things done, in comparison to the equally efficient way you manage your hotels and properties. Oh wait...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate.pdf
I think it's weird to have such a private document floating around the internet, accessible by anyone, but I guess when you're the President of the US nothing escapes the public eye.
Now that the "birthers" can't harp on this issue, what's going to be the next target of attack? The citizenship status of Obama's dad? His qualifications to attend Ivy League institutions? Idiots.
Wow, Donald, congratulations. If you do decide to run for the presidency at least you can use this as proof that you CAN get things done, in comparison to the equally efficient way you manage your hotels and properties. Oh wait...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate.pdf
I think it's weird to have such a private document floating around the internet, accessible by anyone, but I guess when you're the President of the US nothing escapes the public eye.
Now that the "birthers" can't harp on this issue, what's going to be the next target of attack? The citizenship status of Obama's dad? His qualifications to attend Ivy League institutions? Idiots.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
A Dummy's Understanding of the US Federal Budget Situation
There’s currently all this buzz about the budget deficit and government shutdowns in the US. I hear it on the radio, I read it in the news, but I have to be entirely truthful and say my understanding of the whole situation is rather superficial. So in an attempt to be an educated citizen, I decided to look into it a bit more, despite knowing I would be taking precious time away from my thesis. I hope it’ll be worth it. I think it will, because what happens to the budget now and in the future will have a huge impact on my generation: as taxpayers, and as recipients of healthcare, social security (if it’s still around by the time we retire), and other potential government benefits.
The Economist released a rather impressing (not to be confused with impressive) visual of the US budget deficit today. The IMF reported this data. Currently it looks like our budget deficit is about 11% of GDP, while gross government debt as a percentage of GDP stands at almost 100 percent. The latter statistic is pretty scary, but I guess when compared to Japan we’re in a much less severe position. On the other hand, the forecast for reducing out deficit to GDP ratio looks rather optimistic. I guess if a solid plan to reduce the deficit is passed and implemented, we can get the ratio down to a little under 8% by next year. But, to use the old cliché, the devil is in the details. I’m more interested in how exactly the deficit will be cut, so I did a little novice research.
Both parties, Democrat and Republican, are adamant about cutting the budget deficit. They just can’t agree on where the cuts should be made. And this is where the groundswell for partisan politics come in, i.e. the finger-wagging and blame-placing. It might help to first look at what our current federal budget looks like.
The creator of this pie chart took the data from the Congressional Budget Office. It is pretty striking that healthcare constitutes almost a quarter of all spending. With social security and defense spending taking up another 2/5 of the federal budget, I’m assuming everything else is lumped under the category of “discretionary spending.” Everything else, as in education, transportation, environment, urban development, veterans’ benefits, state/foreign affairs, etc is under this one category, which constitutes also about 1/5 of the most recent budget spending report. (The percentage has hovered between 12 to 20 percent in recent past years.)
Here’s a link to a nifty little visual the Office of Management and Budget at the White House put out about what the composition of federal spending looks like.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
So it would make sense to make cuts where it would really make a dent right? I mean, if you’re proposing cutting something that constitutes 1% of the entire budget, that’s like throwing dollars into a trillion-dollar vault. It’s not really going to make a difference, and it won’t aid in the goal of reducing the deficit in the long run.
The next step I took was to see what both parties are proposing cutting. This is the schematic I’ve come to after doing some research. The items are presented in descending order of proposed amount to be cut. In other words, the top of the list is where the largest amount of cuts would be made.
I got this information from respective publications released by the Office of Management and Budget at the White House and the House Budget Committee.
What the Republicans are not cutting, that the Democrats are in favor of, are taxes that were extended to households and individuals during the “Bush tax cut era.” The Republicans are in favor of extending these tax cuts. This is significant because if the tax cuts were allowed to expire it would free up revenue. The counterargument is that these tax cuts are necessary to put more spending power in the hands of Americans and encourage economic growth. If we get our budget in order and eliminate unnecessary spending, argues Republicans, we wouldn’t even be discussing the option of getting rid of tax cuts.
This chart is an oversimplification. Yes, these are the areas that both sides respectively are promoting to cut, but it doesn’t reflect the rationale behind them. Many Republicans are motivated by the need to eliminate “wasteful spending” and “earmarks” (do those buzz words ring to you?), or at least it is claimed. Democrats do not want to make substantial cuts to social spending, so programs like Medicare, Social Security, and education in general are receiving similar levels of funding. Both generally agree that defense spending needs to be kept at similar levels—Democrats are willing to dig a little deeper in favor of cuts.
I’m not a super economist so even after reading about this I’m not sure what to make of it. I’m in favor of spending as long as it goes toward social services that will help average Americans, and I’m willing to use my tax dollars for that purpose. What I don’t have is faith in the unwieldy, politicized bureaucracy to allocate revenue in an efficient way. So Paul Ryan’s plan to reduce the size of the government might address this issue, and if it does then I’m for it. I also agree that the deficit needs to be kept under control, because these levels of spending are unsustainable. And when it comes time to pay back what we owe, chances are that we—this current generation entering the workforce—will all still be alive to see our hard earned dollars going to pay back our creditors. And if we’re all complaining about how high taxes are now…imagine that multiplied by a few times over. It doesn’t take a dummy to realize that in times of economic hardship, the taxpayers always come to the rescue, whether they want to or not. In the meantime, I hope both sides come to a consensus long enough to avoid another government shutdown.
The Economist released a rather impressing (not to be confused with impressive) visual of the US budget deficit today. The IMF reported this data. Currently it looks like our budget deficit is about 11% of GDP, while gross government debt as a percentage of GDP stands at almost 100 percent. The latter statistic is pretty scary, but I guess when compared to Japan we’re in a much less severe position. On the other hand, the forecast for reducing out deficit to GDP ratio looks rather optimistic. I guess if a solid plan to reduce the deficit is passed and implemented, we can get the ratio down to a little under 8% by next year. But, to use the old cliché, the devil is in the details. I’m more interested in how exactly the deficit will be cut, so I did a little novice research.
Both parties, Democrat and Republican, are adamant about cutting the budget deficit. They just can’t agree on where the cuts should be made. And this is where the groundswell for partisan politics come in, i.e. the finger-wagging and blame-placing. It might help to first look at what our current federal budget looks like.
The creator of this pie chart took the data from the Congressional Budget Office. It is pretty striking that healthcare constitutes almost a quarter of all spending. With social security and defense spending taking up another 2/5 of the federal budget, I’m assuming everything else is lumped under the category of “discretionary spending.” Everything else, as in education, transportation, environment, urban development, veterans’ benefits, state/foreign affairs, etc is under this one category, which constitutes also about 1/5 of the most recent budget spending report. (The percentage has hovered between 12 to 20 percent in recent past years.)
Here’s a link to a nifty little visual the Office of Management and Budget at the White House put out about what the composition of federal spending looks like.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
So it would make sense to make cuts where it would really make a dent right? I mean, if you’re proposing cutting something that constitutes 1% of the entire budget, that’s like throwing dollars into a trillion-dollar vault. It’s not really going to make a difference, and it won’t aid in the goal of reducing the deficit in the long run.
The next step I took was to see what both parties are proposing cutting. This is the schematic I’ve come to after doing some research. The items are presented in descending order of proposed amount to be cut. In other words, the top of the list is where the largest amount of cuts would be made.
I got this information from respective publications released by the Office of Management and Budget at the White House and the House Budget Committee.
What the Republicans are not cutting, that the Democrats are in favor of, are taxes that were extended to households and individuals during the “Bush tax cut era.” The Republicans are in favor of extending these tax cuts. This is significant because if the tax cuts were allowed to expire it would free up revenue. The counterargument is that these tax cuts are necessary to put more spending power in the hands of Americans and encourage economic growth. If we get our budget in order and eliminate unnecessary spending, argues Republicans, we wouldn’t even be discussing the option of getting rid of tax cuts.
This chart is an oversimplification. Yes, these are the areas that both sides respectively are promoting to cut, but it doesn’t reflect the rationale behind them. Many Republicans are motivated by the need to eliminate “wasteful spending” and “earmarks” (do those buzz words ring to you?), or at least it is claimed. Democrats do not want to make substantial cuts to social spending, so programs like Medicare, Social Security, and education in general are receiving similar levels of funding. Both generally agree that defense spending needs to be kept at similar levels—Democrats are willing to dig a little deeper in favor of cuts.
I’m not a super economist so even after reading about this I’m not sure what to make of it. I’m in favor of spending as long as it goes toward social services that will help average Americans, and I’m willing to use my tax dollars for that purpose. What I don’t have is faith in the unwieldy, politicized bureaucracy to allocate revenue in an efficient way. So Paul Ryan’s plan to reduce the size of the government might address this issue, and if it does then I’m for it. I also agree that the deficit needs to be kept under control, because these levels of spending are unsustainable. And when it comes time to pay back what we owe, chances are that we—this current generation entering the workforce—will all still be alive to see our hard earned dollars going to pay back our creditors. And if we’re all complaining about how high taxes are now…imagine that multiplied by a few times over. It doesn’t take a dummy to realize that in times of economic hardship, the taxpayers always come to the rescue, whether they want to or not. In the meantime, I hope both sides come to a consensus long enough to avoid another government shutdown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)