Obama wants to destroy jobs

[Moliere]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/politi...html?hpt=hp_t3

It's interesting that Obama wants to give pink-slips to lots of hard-working, middle class Americans. I guess he saw the unemployment numbers go ddown this past month and figured he had to do something to get them back up to his target 9% somehow. Or maybe he just likes taking away the retirement, health insurance and economic stabilitiy of hard working Americans.

[RobinFinderson]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/politi...html?hpt=hp_t3

It's interesting that Obama wants to give pink-slips to lots of hard-working, middle class Americans. I guess he saw the unemployment numbers go ddown this past month and figured he had to do something to get them back up to his target 9% somehow. Or maybe he just likes taking away the retirement, health insurance and economic stabilitiy of hard working Americans.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the word 'attrition,' which the article uses. No pink slips.

[TripletDaddy]

Yes! I'm glad Obama is destroying jobs. Who cares about those people?

[Moliere]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the word 'attrition,' which the article uses. No pink slips.

Funny how you taking such a hard line on definitions when it suits your purpose.

Bottom line is he's taking away jobs and opportunities from hard working Americans. Whether he hands them an actual pink slip or he refuses to hire to fill positions left vacant by 'attrition' the effect is the same.

[wuapinmon]

Funny how you taking such a hard line on definitions when it suits your purpose.

Bottom line is he's taking away jobs and opportunities from hard working Americans. Whether he hands them an actual pink slip or he refuses to hire to fill positions left vacant by 'attrition' the effect is the same.

I don't follow your posts enough to know your politics intimately. Do you favor government spending as a way out of recession (I know we're not in one, but, still)?

[Katy Lied]

Sometimes government spending can pull a country out of recession, but not when it has been spending money hell-bent-for leather already. Such conditions are quite rare.

I actually like this cut by Obama. It only affects 1000 workers (so I hear) and gets rid of overlapping services. Of course, he's gonna pimp it like it actually means something. He'll want to point to something when he's up against Romney who can claim he removed a lot of waste in companies and can do so in government.

[RobinFinderson]

Funny how you taking such a hard line on definitions when it suits your purpose.

Bottom line is he's taking away jobs and opportunities from hard working Americans. Whether he hands them an actual pink slip or he refuses to hire to fill positions left vacant by 'attrition' the effect is the same.

I'm a big definition man. The meanings of words matter a lot when trying to communicate ideas through speech and writing. I'm opposed to the use of dictionaries to define words that already have a commonly understood meaning, or to try to win a debate by using a very narrow definition that evades the opponent's argument.

But you are still being inaccurate in your description. There will be no pink slips and there will be no vacancies. When a person retires from a redundant position, that position will no longer exist (no vacancy) because it will have been consolidated into a redundant position.

[Moliere]

I'm a big definition man. The meanings of words matter a lot when trying to communicate ideas through speech and writing. I'm opposed to the use of dictionaries to define words that already have a commonly understood meaning, or to try to win a debate by using a very narrow definition that evades the opponent's argument.

But you are still being inaccurate in your description. There will be no pink slips and there will be no vacancies. When a person retires from a redundant position, that position will no longer exist (no vacancy) because it will have been consolidated into a redundant position.

So the government just hires less people? And this is good for the American worker to have less available jobs?

[RobinFinderson]

So the government just hires less people? And this is good for the American worker to have less available jobs?

Nope. The government hires FEWER people, and this is good for the American worker because they have FEWER redundant government jobs to pay for with their tax dollars.

[wuapinmon]

For the record, I don't mind laying people off if an enterprise is not making sufficient money to justify their salary/position. I do, however, really dislike executives receiving bonuses or salary increases for doing so, especially when it appears pro forma.

Novartis announced today it was laying off 2,000 people in the US because the patent for Diovan is expiring and two of their diabetes drugs trials crashed and burned (I know this because of an article I read; I don't own stock in Novartis). It makes sense to lay off people now because a huge revenue stream ($6 billion annual) is coming offline.

If the Novartis execs get bonuses for laying people off just to meet bottom line goals, then that bothers me. Of course, I don't think that the government should do anything about it, per se, but I wish that there was a way for stockholders to force boards to examine exec compensation in these cases and keep it reasonable. But, I also realize that this will vary wildly from company to company and the reward involved vs the amount of capital risked. So, my wish is a fool's errand, and nothing should come of it that's not organic out of stockholder ire, like the Disney revolt a few years back.

[Moliere]

Nope. The government hires FEWER people, and this is good for the American worker because they have FEWER redundant government jobs to pay for with their tax dollars.

Right, so if 1,000 jobs are consolidated (as KL mentioned above) then there are 1,000 less jobs available. This means 1,000 less college grads (or someone else looking for work) get hired, which means 1,000 less families have health insurance, which strains unemployment programs, medicaid programs, social worker programs (for the depression caused by unemployment), etc. Seems like we'd be better off with redundant jobs than putting these people onto the federal assistance programs.

[RobinFinderson]

Right, so if 1,000 jobs are consolidated (as KL mentioned above) then there are 1,000 less FEWER jobs available. This means 1,000 less FEWER college grads (or someone else looking for work) get hired, which means 1,000 less FEWER families have health insurance, which strains unemployment programs, medicaid programs, social worker programs (for the depression caused by unemployment), etc. Seems like we'd be better off with redundant jobs than putting these people onto the federal assistance programs.

FEWER FEWER FEWER! Fewer is for things that are countable, like JOBS, and less is for quantities that are not countable, like 'unemployment.'

Anyhow, if the solution to the jobs crisis in America were simply for the government to invent unnecessary jobs, the situation would have been fixed a long time ago. BTW, aren't you a conservative? Why the heck are you arguing for government waste? Isn't the conservative argument supposed to be something to the effect, "But with the tax savings Americans will experience from ceasing to fund redundant Government jobs, the private sector will replace those jobs at a more efficient level. 1000 eliminated government jobs will become 1500 private sector jobs." Or something like that.

[il Padrino Ute]

Right, so if 1,000 jobs are consolidated (as KL mentioned above) then there are 1,000 less jobs available. This means 1,000 less college grads (or someone else looking for work) get hired, which means 1,000 less families have health insurance, which strains unemployment programs, medicaid programs, social worker programs (for the depression caused by unemployment), etc. Seems like we'd be better off with redundant jobs than putting these people onto the federal assistance programs.

Obama wants this country to be like the failures that are Greece, Italy, etc. Anything that makes people dependent on the federal government is what he's pushing. He loves that control over our lives.

[RobinFinderson]

Obama wants this country to be like the failures that are Greece, Italy, etc. Anything that makes people dependent on the federal government is what he's pushing. He loves that control over our lives.

Not according to the article. The article says that Obama want do decrease government redundancy so that taxpayers will have FEWER unnecessary government jobs to fund, thus making us LESS dependent on the federal government.

[Goatnapper'96]

Not according to the article. The article says that Obama want do decrease government redundancy so that taxpayers will have FEWER unnecessary government jobs to fund, thus making us LESS dependent on the federal government.

I think we can all agree that this is a good thing.