Companies hoarding money, not hiring? Holding new jobs numbers hostage might *break him*.

[seafan]

So now, we find out that nonfinancial companies are hoarding $1.8 trillion in cash, balking from hiring new employees, while their fattened cash piles continue to accumulate.

The US Chamber of Commerce claims that it's because of odious *regulations* forced onto companies by the Obama Administration.

.....

If corporations are sitting on so much money, why aren't they hiring more workers?

The answer to that question has become a political flash point between the White House and big business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which held a jobs summit Wednesday and accused the Obama administration of dumping onerous regulations on businesses. That has created an environment of "uncertainty," which is causing firms to hold back on hiring as the unemployment rate has hovered near 10 percent, the Chamber said.

The White House countered that companies are wary of hiring not because of new regulations but because they're still waiting for consumer demand to return. The administration also claimed credit for 3.5 million jobs created by the stimulus bill from last year.

The acrimony over jobs comes at a particularly tense moment in the relationship between business groups and the White House. With the midterm elections looming and polls showing Americans expressing a lack of confidence in President Obama's handling of the economy, White House officials are eager to demonstrate that their policies are helping, not hurting, the prospects for job growth and are making an extra effort to reach out to industry leaders.

.....

So, really, why aren't these cash-hoarding companies hiring?



Do we think it might be that consumers now have little or no money to purchase what these companies produce? Nah, can't be that.


Do we think it's because these companies have taken what jobs that used to be in this country, providing our own people with disposable income, and outsourced them to places that ultimately are a competitive threat to these companies? Nooo, it cannot be that.


Do we think that it is these companies' intent to *break Obama* by intentionally withholding any positive numbers on new job growth, knowing that the American people will likely hold Obama accountable for not creating new jobs as we approach the next election cycle? We're getting warmer.




This sounds like old-fashioned extortion.


It seems that the US Chamber of Commerce and the leadership of like-minded companies are in favor of choking off new job numbers, because it just might *break him*. And us. But, what do they care?



Not to mention blaming the corporate cash hoarding on Obama's health care reform and horror of horrors... letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. Surely, that must be it.



GOP Says No To Unemployment Benefits, Yes To Tax Cuts For The Rich

July 13, 2010

For weeks, Senate Republicans have filibustered an extension of unemployment benefits on the grounds that Democrats aren't willing to cut spending or raise taxes to pay for them. At the same time, the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, and Republicans want them to be renewed. For two days, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl has raised eyebrows by insisting that emergency aid to unemployed people -- what he called a "necessary evil" -- be paid for through either tax hikes or spending cuts, while the tax cuts (which mostly benefit wealthy people) not be offset in any way.

.....

Does everyone get that?

According to the GOP, we need to offset the cost of unemployment benefits, but those tax cuts for the wealthy get by with a free pass.



(Clockwise from top left) Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY), John Cornyn (R-TX), Judd Gregg (R-NH), John Kyl (R-AZ)


How can anyone take these fools' credibility seriously?


'Male, pale and stale' is right. (Hat tip to Katrina vanden Heuvel)






Robert Parry has something to say about tax cuts for the rich (and our compromised media).

.....

Predictably, the free-marketers at CNBC and the Wall Street Journal have echoed the political message of the Chamber of Commerce and other right-wingers who blame the sluggish rehiring on the Obama administration’s health-care reform and the likelihood that President George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich will lapse.

That view fits with Ronald Reagan’s economic orthodoxy which has dominated the United States for the past three decades. It holds that the answer to the nation’s economic woes is always to cut taxes especially for the rich, to trust in corporate self-regulation, and to crack down on unions.

Yet, the realistic answer to America’s sorry economic state would seem to be the opposite: to raise taxes on the rich so investments can be made in the national infrastructure of education, transportation and technology; to impose reasonable regulations on corporations to prevent dangerous excesses and risks; and to ensure that workers (and consumers) get a fair shake.

Through the federal taxing power, Washington could put Americans to work preparing the nation for the future, building high-speed rail, developing clean energy, improving education for all, advancing medical technologies, repairing the environment, and addressing a host of other national priorities.

.....

With unemployment staying high, many middle-class Americans will sink into a growing under-class. The rich will fight to keep as much of their oversized salaries and bonuses as possible, with the Republicans ensuring that the one political sure-thing will be that legislated tax increases won’t happen.

Indeed, the simplest way to address the nation’s myriad of problems – by restoring the marginal tax rates for the rich back to the historical levels of, say, the Kennedy era (around 60 percent on their top income) – is the one thing that is almost impossible to contemplate.

Since Reagan’s presidency, the Republicans have been determined to “starve” the government of resources so it can’t address problems like climate change, renewable energy, education, transportation, health care, housing, etc. The only big expenditure that the GOP won’t cut is military spending, especially for overseas wars.

Though the Republican vision of the future appears to guarantee a continued decline in the quality of American life, the Right’s propaganda machinery makes any suggestion about the need to tax the rich more heavily akin to socialism. The Revolutionary War slogan, “no taxation without representation,” has been transformed to something close to “no taxation, period.”

Remember the famous encounter between candidate Obama and “Joe the Plumber,” who decried Obama’s idea about the need to redistribute wealth from the upper-income levels to middle- and working-class Americans so the economy would work better.

That debate remains at the center of America’s economic struggles, as it has been since the Great Depression when income inequality and financial speculation were two key factors in the mass unemployment that followed the Crash of 1929. Two lessons learned were that a strong middle class and reasonable government regulations were necessary for a healthy economy.

.....

In the midst of the current right wing propaganda blast, let's not forget that the primary reasons for the massive deficit that the right wingers are screaming about are wars and tax cuts.


"The Legacy of Bush Policies"

Their own doing.








We need to do several things immediately.


1. Raise taxes on the wealthy. Substantially. (Insert ear plugs first.) Be brave, Mr. President.

2. Cut military spending. Ruthlessly. End these perpetual wars.

3. Reinstate corporate and Wall Street financial regulations that were destroyed primarily during Republican administrations.

4. Impose high re-import tariffs on domestic companies that avoid taxes by outsourcing American production jobs to poorly compensated foreign workers. Make this behavior painful. Very.




It is going to take courage and political will. Something we have not seen in decades.

[Deep13]

1. We need a new tax on gigantic piles of cash.

Too bad our Congressional jellyfish piss themselves with fear anytime someone suggests tax increases.

Either that or else we need to create a little inflation.

I think they are holding the economy hostage to get the government they want.

[dkf]

3. Maybe everyones patriotic duty is to make sure no one saves anything right?

Do you have anything saved up? Unless your bank account is zero you are a deadbeat.

[Deep13]

6. I certainly don't have gigantic piles of cash. nt

[dkf]

2. Why would anyone hire if they don't need more employees and are expecting minimal growth?

Do you spend money for no purpose? I don't get why we expect this from them.

Companies foresee difficult times ahead. Would you rather they spend everything get into a cash crunch and then have to lay off people later?

[Winterblues]

4. Why would they foresee bad times ahead?

They need consumers for their business to advance and know, KNOW, that Tax Cuts for them is not creating new consumers..A build up of money at the very top pretty much puts a hold on new consumerism..

[dkf]

8. The fed says it will take 5 to 6 years to recover.

For businesses that didn't lay off that means they have the burden of excess employees for 5 to 6 years too.

And if banks are no longer too big to fail then you can't rely on lines of credit or the ability to borrow funds but need them on hand in case of another seizure of the financial markets. Europe almost went through this before they decided to bail out Greece.

Small businesses have realized how vulnerable they are when they don't have cash stored up and no credit is available. I'm sure big businesses realize this too.

This recovery is fragile. It is not prudent to assume a recovery and easy access to credit.

[seafan]

7. The problem is, these companies are dragons sitting on their treasure.

They are sitting on all this money to buy control over our government, to perpetuate their very lucrative wars and to keep as much money for themselves as possible via tax cuts.

Regular people are just fodder, you see.



The idea of corporations spending money 'for no purpose', such as ensuring that regular people have a way to support their families, afford health care, afford food, afford energy, educate their children and retire in some degree of comfort is apparently not in the dragons' priority list.


What the dragons don't understand is that without these things, their own demise will be hastened.

[dkf]

9. Actually I don't see the purpose of corporations being the general well being of all Americans.

Their duties stop at the wellbeing of their owners and employees and that they do not provide defective products to their customers and do not harm innocent bystanders.

Why do we feel they owe us the lifestyle we want? Hell if they provided me medical care and a retirement for life I'd be a better customer I'm sure.

[HughBeaumont]

5. Bush's best economic period?

During his re-election year.

After the deed was done (again), employment started to drop off gradually, employers quietly got out of the stock market, and the last time the 150k job churn benchmark would be hit during his administration was November 2007. Since then, all downhill. Never once did he raise taxes and he kept his goddamned occupations going, even when the Paulson Gang looted the treasury. Coincidence?

Pesky things, them facts.

The Private Sector has added virtually no jobs in a ten year period

Repeat after me: Corporate America is holding America hostage.

It's all about their vision of complete and unquestioned control.

[The Magistrate]

10. Quite Right, Sir: They Are 'On Strike' To Bring Down Our Democratic Government

They fear that over coming years we will actually enforce some regulation and reasonable rates of taxation....

[TwilightGardener]

11. Interesting...I've seen some posters who say, "Well, I'm saving cash

and being more frugal because the economy is still shaky, why shouldn't businesses?" But that is NOT the reason the corporations are giving for not hiring and expanding. No, they are pointing specifically to new regulations and laws--not the general state of the economy. I think you're on to something.