'Job-Killing' Gov. Spending = crazy idea

[Jonas.dini]

And that's on the WSJ editorial page, not some leftist mag

 

[allreasoned_out]

And that's on the WSJ editorial page, not some leftist mag

The WSJ lets non-conservative people publish op-eds, but you shouldn't take that as meaning that they endorse their views. Most WSJ op. eds are garbage. I would be surprised if their editorial board didn't believe that gov. spending kills jobs.

 

[Jonas.dini]

The WSJ lets non-conservative people publish op-eds, but you shouldn't take that as meaning that they endorse their views. Most WSJ op. eds are garbage. I would be surprised if their editorial board didn't believe that gov. spending kills jobs.

Just an observation b, not taking it as being indicative of a shift in their general perspective

 

[rebate]

The WSJ lets non-conservative people publish op-eds, but you shouldn't take that as meaning that they endorse their views. Most WSJ op. eds are garbage. I would be surprised if their editorial board didn't believe that gov. spending kills jobs.

I agree. Some of the ideas that they are giving to people are nothing but deconstructive.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

To me this is an open and shut case. I agree with many parts of the article. But the average american is stupid. They don't like math. They hate being knocked over the head with logic. Its easy to talk about religion and opinion and cultural wars. Sit em in front of a budget and they shut the fuck up.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

I'm an average American citzen and understand this simple point......you can't/won't get out of debt by spending more money.

average stupid response

thats an oversimplification of the situation at hand

 

[politicalthug202]

I'm an average American citzen and understand this simple point......you can't/won't get out of debt by spending more money.

wrong ok when a buisness owner gets a operating loan so he can hire workers and buy product to sell.

he does this makes a profit and he makes a profit and pays back the loan interest.

see he went into debt to produce wealth.

samething when a kid gets a student loan for college.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

wrong ok when a buisness owner gets a operating loan so he can hire workers and buy product to sell.

he does this makes a profit and he makes a profit and pays back the loan interest.

see he went into debt to produce wealth.

samething when a kid gets a student loan for college.

they won't hear you though......

 

[allreasoned_out]

wrong ok when a buisness owner gets a operating loan so he can hire workers and buy product to sell.
he does this makes a profit and he makes a profit and pays back the loan interest.

see he went into debt to produce wealth.

samething when a kid gets a student loan for college.

they won't hear you though......

. .

 

[blakfyahking]

ok, but the fed govt isn't a private enterprise

giving out loans to business is good to private corporations..........but the problem is the recoup of loans given to the private sector, and mismanagement of the fed govts liabilities

it's great to help private businesses expand, but if the fed were run like a private biz, it would be considered a failure like Lehman brothers

IMO, a govt entity shouldn't be leveraged at all since they can print money

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Are you serious? Business loans are given out to small business owners for hiring purposes. BTW your comparison of student loans and bus. loans aren't one in the same. If you went into a bank and asked for a loan so you could hire more people and buy more products to sell,I really doubt you would get that loan.FYI loans DON'T get paid back by just paying the interest alone....have you ever paid off a debt of yours?

You're first analogy was completely off the mark (when you compared yourself to the US debt)

And according to Michelle Bachman "all we have to do is continue to pay down the interest" (that was in response to a question about the debt limit)

And no a bank would not ask for a loan SPECIFICALLY to hire ppl.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

I Love this country but FEAR the government

I completely ignored your post. Because it follows this idealistic virtue that government = bad, private = good.

Following a handbook and being a stereotype of your political identity shows how much a sheep you are. Democrat or Republican.

You're a sheep of private corporations, while others are sheep of the government. But you're both sheep. Y'all are the same ppl but on different aisles of the debate.

Another thing, the essence of this private vs public argument is quite stupid. Because at the end of the day, both entities are ran by PEOPLE. And whether the person has government credentials, or not, they are still capable of human follies.

What part of that do you not understand? Its sad that you can give me a list of things against government but couldn't generate your own list for why private entities are just as bad.

You're a fuckn sheep.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

That list wasn't made by me -- since you seem to think that private entities can be just as corrupt as the US government?

State insurance regulator in line for $600,000 consulting job

Official would oversee portfolio of risky policies written by bond insurer Ambac

By Cary Spivak of the Journal Sentinel

June 28, 2011 |(109) Comments

Roger Peterson, a longtime employee of the state Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, is in line for a sixfold pay increase when he leaves state employment to immediately become a privately paid consultant to the state in the Ambac case, according to a plan pending before a circuit judge.

Currently, Peterson is paid just over $100,000 annually as a deputy division administrator for regulation and enforcement.

As part of his duties, he also serves as the special deputy commissioner overseeing the restructuring of Ambac Assurance Corp. - the financially ailing bond insurance company that is regulated by the Wisconsin insurance commissioner's office and is being restructured under the supervision of a Lafayette County judge.

Under the proposal by Insurance Commissioner Ted Nickel, Peterson, who has been with the department for more than 20 years, would quit his state job and become a full-time special deputy commissioner to oversee Ambac's $42 billion segregated account - that's the portfolio holding Ambac's riskiest policies.

Ambac would pay Peterson $600,000 annually, plus a $375,000 bonus if he stays on the job for 40 months. He would also receive a $7,500 monthly housing allowance for three months - if the contract is approved, he would move to New York - plus some expenses, according to a motion pending before Judge William Johnston.

Last year, Kimberly Shaul, who was deputy insurance commissioner, handled both jobs, as Peterson has done.

"I was amazed with her ability to handle both roles," said Sean Dilweg, the insurance commissioner in Gov. Jim Doyle's administration. "It's a strain."

Nickel, who was appointed by Gov. Scott Walker, wants Peterson to quit his state job and work as a consultant because the Ambac case has "moved into the more active phase," explained Eileen Mallow, assistant deputy insurance commissioner.

"It's basically like having two jobs," said Michael B. Van Sicklen, a Foley & Lardner attorney representing the commissioner.

Neither Peterson nor Nickel responded to calls for comment on the proposed change.

The proposal brought an immediate harsh reaction from a group of Ambac creditors. Because Peterson would now be paid by Ambac, the creditors group says it will cost them, since Ambac owes them and other creditors billions.

"Mr. Peterson would be making four times the salary of Wisconsin's governor and chief justice of the Supreme Court," according to the objection filed in court by the creditors group, which consists of hedge funds that own securities Ambac insured. "This is inequitable and unconscionable when . . . policyholders have already waited nearly 15 months for payment of their claims" and "in all likelihood will recover only a fraction of what they are due if the (Ambac account) ever does begin to pay."

Mallow defended the salary, saying, "If you look at and compare (Peterson) to his peer group out there, he is in the middle to low range."

The creditors' motion, put together by attorneys from the Chicago-based firm Jenner & Block and Milwaukee's Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren, also levies sharp criticism against Peterson and the state commissioner's office, saying they should have seen the problems at Ambac long before the company was on the verge of failure.

"Whatever Mr. Peterson and (the commissioner's office) are doing is not working," the creditors' motion argues, questioning whether "Peterson will be able to turn things around simply because he moves to New York to dedicate more time" to the case.

The dispute is the latest in the contentious battle involving billions of dollars that is being played out in Lafayette County. The case landed in rural Wisconsin because, though its headquarters is in New York, Ambac was founded in Wisconsin and remains under the jurisdiction of Wisconsin insurance regulators.

The complex case is being watched nationally because it affects the finances of corporations, hospitals, investors and state and local governments nationwide. Scores of lawyers have collected millions of dollars in fees. Through last fall, Milwaukee's Foley & Lardner, which represents the commissioner, had billed Ambac $7.1 million.

Ambac provides insurance policies similar to mortgage insurance guaranteeing that bondholders are paid. When the economy collapsed, many of those bonds, particularly those backed by subprime mortgage loans, went into default, leaving Ambac on the hook.

Dilweg and the court last year placed Ambac's riskiest policies, valued at tens of billions of dollars, into a segregated account to separate those from the safer policies. Overall, the company insures more than $300 billion in bonds, many of which are low-risk, such as municipal bonds.

Mallow defended the handling of Ambac by Peterson and the commissioner's office, noting that the office increased scrutiny of Ambac in late 2007 and 2008. Prior to the office's taking action, Ambac "wasn't doing anything that was not consistent with insurance law," she said.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/124653423.html

The biggest reason Obama can't create jobs -- the private sector lives in fear of his policies/ ideologies & his agenda for America.

this is a fuckn myth....back this up with a legitimate fact

the private sector lives in fear??? lol how can you live in fear when you are hitting record profits. Shut the fuck up. And its A BUSINESS. Seriously, what business is planning their 4th quarter profits off of budget deficit talks??? Is you stupid??? That is a myth. You supply side republicans be killing me man.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

That list wasn't made by me -- since you seem to think that private entities can be just as corrupt as the US government? which I don't think they are.....here's your chance to show others what you know about said private entities. BTW the private sector UNlike the government can't print money. The biggest reason Obama can't create jobs -- the private sector lives in fear of his policies/ ideologies & his agenda for America. This President is totally incompetent.

So there you fuckn go. You keep complaining about the government this and the government that. Yet you love to ignore that many of the same ppl running your beloved private corporations were government employees.

And the only reason they switched over, is because of payroll increases.

But oooooooh no! Let Ann Coulter tell you, and its "look at the government employees getting payroll increases left and right." (she just said this on Bill Maher this past friday)

But could you imagine if the government tried to match this 6fold increase. This would be front page news on Fox. But the fact that its the private corporation doing it, it gets labeled as good business. You're a fuckn sheep b.....

It comes down to the ppl. As I said before, you just don't wanna admit that, because your entire being is predicated behind "government = bad, private = good"

 

[tru_m.a.c]

I still contend that Obama has instilled so much fear within the small business community

define a small business

 

[politicalthug202]

bank give operating loans for business loans all the time to expand their operations

and hire more people.

internet start ups use business loans all time to start a company.

they make a profit and pay back a thje loan and interest.

thats how you create wealth. capital investment.

getting a student loan is the samething, the government gives student loans

so a person is more employable, as a result as a college graduate, they have a higher salary

and pay more taxes, and they payback the loan over time. the person wins, the government wins and the

the economy wins,because that person contributes more to gdp

 

[blakfyahking]

The bolded area above only ---- FYI just how do you explain your point or just maybe you can't?

Which countries have had most, and least, GDP growth per person since 2001?

FOR all its faults, GDP per person is still the measure that gives the best indicator of economic progress or lack thereof. The countries where GDP per head grew fastest between 2001 and 2010—Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan—are all rich in natural resources, and were beneficiaries of the past decade’s boom in commodity prices. China is an exception to this rule, which makes its growth even more impressive. And while it usually helps to start relatively poor, a bad start does not necessarily result in success later on. Haiti and Zimbabwe have both explored how much ruin there is in a nation over the past decade and show little sign of improving. They are two of only 15 countries that have seen negative growth since 2001. Slow population growth also helps: although America's economy has grown considerably faster than Japan's since 2001, Japan’s population has shrunk while America's has risen. This means that income per head in Japan has grown almost as rapidly as in America over this period.

if you consider how GDP per person is calculated, I think you are invalidating your own argument with the underlined. How can you credit a country as having economic progress when its only raising its GDP per person off of the economic rent of selling a natural resource?

the quality of life in those countries suck for the most part, striking oil hasn't done anything to improve the economy overall in those countries except make the elite even richer. I wouldn't exactly call expanding the income gap between rich and poor "economic progress."

 

[tru_m.a.c]

IMO I think any employer with less than 50 employees are considered small bus owners. However the info below says otherwise.

Did you know that the legal definition of a small business is determined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)? Title 13, Part 121 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets forth in detail the criteria to be used by the SBA in making small business determinations. Examples of these criteria include the number of workers employed by a business, annual receipts, and the nature of the many relationships with affiliates. The SBA establishes small business "size standards" on an industry-by-industry basis using statistics from a wide range of sources. There are size standards in each industry (e.g. manufacturing, heavy construction, specialty trade construction, retail trade, etc.) that a business must meet in order to be considered small.

But that's my point. There are size and standards of each industry. But you couldn't even name the policies that affect small business in each industry. You can't just throw out a blanket statement as "he's hurting small businesses," when a small business in retail trade, is different than a small business in manufacturing.

You republicans (and democrats) with your flat one size fits all theories need to shut the fuck up.

Stop hiding behind this "small business" and "American ppl" rhetoric. You don't even know what you're defending. So how can you defend it?

What state are you from? You couldn't even tell me how the democrats/republicans in your own state are affecting policy. I'm pretty sure the federal government is the least of your worries.

 

[kingblaze84]

Since when does govt spending NOT create jobs? If it wasnt for govt funding, how many cops and firefighters would be out of work?!!

Republicans being terrible at math will be the biggest reason Obama wins re-election in 2012. Okay, the biggest reason Obama is still the favorite to win in 2012, he could still lose.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Since when does govt spending NOT create jobs? If it wasnt for govt funding, how many cops and firefighters would be out of work?!!

Republicans being terrible at math will be the biggest reason Obama wins re-election in 2012. Okay, the biggest reason Obama is still the favorite to win in 2012, he could still lose.

Those are not the type of jobs we are generally speaking out when we say government spending creates jobs. The jobs Obama is pushing for are infrastructure development jobs for railways, highways, bridges etc.

Cause those jobs also accelerate economic production and consumption.

And 70% of firefighters are volunteers