Many businesses are not even feasible at all in this economic environment. Many small businesses had been holding out hope that somehow this election might turn things around and make it possible for them to keep going, but when Obama won it was kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back.
You can't do what the federal government and the state governments are doing to us and expect to have a thriving economy. They are choking the life out of us.
New businesses and small businesses are supposed to be at the heart of our economic system. Unfortunately, the environment that has been created is absolutely killing them. This is a recipe for disaster.
Owners pouting and taking vengeance because they lost. Just proves Republicans are meanies who don't care about the workers.
I wish I was being sarcastic but I have seen this stated by more than one liberal.
...who can't do simple math.
When it costs 'x' to provide a service or make a product and 'y' is the return on that effort, if x>y then [unlike government] the company goes out of business. If government makes rules that mean 'x' raises beyond 'y', the company goes out of business. Their only alternative to stay in business is to reduce 'x' which usually is done by reducing expenses associated with costs. In this case the associated cost per employee that has been government mandated/taxed to raise early next year.
I'm sorry that people will lose their jobs. I think it was inevitable. Obama is not a business-friendly president. In fact, he knows nothing about business as is evidenced by all his boneheaded decisions regarding "green" jobs and the frittering away of stimulus monies (other peoples money). It does not seem like anyone around him knows much about business. He chose to back (payback) the unions for their help (money and votes). Unions do not create jobs. The GM buyout was not such a great decision. The bondholders got screwed; the unions made out. Obama had better get a better attitude towards business instead of demonizing them. No businesses creating wealth for themselves, employees and others; no economy. There is so much uncertainty in this economy that it makes any planning extremely difficult. It ends up that they plan for the worst case rather than for a healthy growing economy. Business and the marketplace is not stupid. I read some of the comments over at Drudge in response to Applebee's potential layoffs and they are absolutely uninformed, reactive, and stupid. Most of the comments were calling for a boycott of Applebees--no matter that Applebees are individual franchises usually owned locally.
"Owners pouting and taking vengeance because they lost"
it's more practical than that. it's the same reason that the Dow Jones has been dropping. People don't realize the profound impact that the oncoming Fiscal Cliff is having on business planning. Everything related to the defense industry has been more-or-less frozen for most of this year. Many other businesses that get follow-on orders are also frozen. Hiring is practically non-existent. When Congress sets in motion a future plan that could hike taxes and fire many talented people - the whole country goes on HOLD.
With the elction of Obama ... and especially because the whole leadership of the USA is being tight-lipped about this process .. business owners must plan for the worst. It looks very much like a full-fledged recession will hit in 2013. Hence the acceleration of layoffs is perfectly logical.
Actual commerce will be gray and black market...
Dope dealers and moonshiners will prosper. They already know how to hide their money, hide their operations and fly below the radar.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
11/11/2012 15:03 Comments ||
"They already know how to hide their money, hide their operations "
an increasing problem for the US Gov't. as families become cash-starved (due to a decline in real buying power), more people resort to cash transactions. unreported income ... unreported sales. hence tax receipts go into a steady decline.
Yes, JohnQC. "Most of the comments were calling for a boycott of Applebees--no matter that Applebees are individual franchises usually owned locally". I read that also. Didn't bother to post a comment. Waist of time. Go ahead and boycott and more people will lose their jobs. I wanted to say- and go on welfare like the rest of you. Raise taxes and get lower revenue. When the money is gone, who are you gonna blame. Just have to suck it up. That's what the corperations are doing now and for months ahead of this disaster.
To convince voters things were getting better, the Obama campaign pointed to the millions of jobs that have been created since the recession officially ended in June 2009. Household employment data for the 50 states and Washington, D.C., do show an overall net gain of 2.59 million jobs through this September.
Ironically, the bulk of the increase occurred in the 22 states that have had Right to Work laws on the books since June 2009. Their aggregate household employment grew by 1.86 million, or 3.4%. (Since Indiana did not adopt its Right to Work law until this February, the 19,000 jobs it added are not included.) Because Right to Work laws protect employees from being fired for refusal to pay union dues or fees, Big Labor bosses hate them. And the union hierarchy's massive, forced dues-fueled campaign support is the single most important reason the President was reelected.
At the same time, Right to Work states (again excluding Indiana) were responsible for 72% of all net household job growth across the U.S. from June 2009 through September 2012 (see chart above). If these states' job increase had been no better than the 0.85% experienced by forced-unionism states as a group, the nationwide job increase would have been less than half as great. And the President wouldn't have been able even to pretend the economy was in recovery.
Big Labor bosses hate them. Must be a good thing then. I don't see California, NY, Illinois or the eastern seaboard blue states passing a state RTWL. I don't see a way out of continuing budget crunches and increasing debt for the blue states unless a National Right-to-Work Law is passed. That is not going to happen during this administration. Too many IOUs. RTW would be a good issue for the Pubs if they could sell it on its merits and if the leadership of the party would get behind it.
German schadenfreude knows no bounds, particularly when it comes to the United States. The country loves to feel superior to a superpower like America. Yet Germany also harbors a childish infatuation with Obama -- one which has little political grounding. The reasons are psychological.
fully 93 percent of the country (Germany) would have voted for him (Obama) in this election
We weren't quite as foolish here in the U.S. Nearly half of the voters in the U.S. did not vote for Obama. There are some 94 million eligible voters in the U.S. who did not vote. One couldn't say either party has a mandate. A no vote may mean that neither candidate was suitable.
Germany needs those exports. No money in US no Audis exported. Enjoy bailing out the PIIGS, German Taxpayers.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/11/2012 14:24 Comments ||
The article is an exaggeration. While it's true that most Germans prefer Obama over Romney, the "crush" on him is long gone. Romney has given Germans no reasons to like him, he didn't visit the country and frankly, he has given nobody much reason to like him except for being a Republican.
I've seen Obama in Berlin 2008 and was utterly unimpressed by his empty phrases. Since then I've been joined by many sane Germans. For many Obama has shown to be a disappointment. They only mention his Nobel Prize with a snark. But they still don't like Romney.
But then again, nobody has to now. He's fading away.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
11/11/2012 18:17 Comments ||
EU, I appreciate reading your views from across the pond. You are more perceptive than many of our voters in the US.
Thank you JohnQC
Let me just add that there is no need to go into a depressive mood now. Obama's incompetence will become more obvious in the next two years. Republicans still control the House so they can and hopefully will prevent any nonsense he might try.
In two years take back the Senate, chose a candidate who appeals to a wide diversity of Americans. Don't buy that demographic crap of "angry old white males". A charismatic, steadfast, principled Republican can and will appeal to a majority of Americans. This country was not built on entitlements, it was built on freedom and justice for all.
Even Romney could have won this. A better Republican certainly will. I don't think that after four more years of Obama people will be waiting for Hillary.
Obama was (and still is) popular because of his speeches. Let's face it: His speech after winning was excellent. It was a speech a Republican could have given, too.
The difference? A Republican would have meant it. And followed through. Obama had promised to unite Americans in 2008. That didn't happen of course.
Ronald Reagan could.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
11/11/2012 18:54 Comments ||
I'm sorry EC, but there will never be a mythical "better Republican." The problem is perceptions. If the guy pointing at the freight train barreling down the tracks and frantically waving us off, has to be morally flawless and also "charismatic" before we'll listen to him, we'll get smashed to bits, and we'll deserve it.
Pravda means Truth. How sad that it is the only truth in media now.
The Democrats and Republicans are notorious for wanting to stay in power. Their worshipers get their education from TV and their friends. In the future, after it becomes obvious that their plan failed, these "useful idiots" will still blame Bush for the economy, overlook Obama as they overlooked Clinton's mistakes or think their vote counts and they actually have freedom
I don't like conspiracy theories, I may be totally wrong, but the timing of this, again, right after the election and right before Petraeus is supposed to get grilled on Capitol Hill, it's really smells.
The purpose of Patreus' resignation in this fashion is to suck up the news cycle. It gets the ones focused on Benghazi off track and provides "blocking" for all the other dopes in America that voted for the guy. The blocking is critical. He is impeachable over this, but to impeach you will need popular support. You can't get that support if Benghazi is kept out of the news cycle because the population you need to reach with the facts will not receive them. The first tactic was Attack, the issue is being politicized, the next was downplay, it's really not an issue, now it is misdirect, pay attention to something else, you will continue to get misdirect along with a "little bomb", some aspect of vague truth which gets some media attention but can not be used later as lying or hiding the truth because "remember, we already told you this". Look for another cycle sucker in a few days.
I forgot, whoever is pursuing this had better get in front of the camera (not on fox news!) and define themselves and their purpose. They need to get bi-partisan. Because if they don't in about two weeks they will start to be called, racist sore losing republicans trying to drum up a controversy. If that sticks, the ones on the other side you need to pay attention and care, won't. And that is a little drop in the pond with ripples to 2014 and 2016.
The Vernon Loeb co-author connection is very suspecious. If you look at the General Stan McChrystal resignation and the recent and very troubling rash of flag officer firings, one cannot help but examine a potentially hostile administration angle. I have no trust at all for the current FBI/DoJ.
Follows is a Ricky bin Ricardo post from yesterday. His bottom line is at least worthy of close scrutiny:
#24 From a Chicago Tribune story about Ms. Broadwell:
The book began as research for her dissertation, a case study of Petraeus' leadership. It evolved into an authorized biography written with Washington Post editor Vernon Loeb after President Barack Obama put Petraeus in charge of Afghanistan in 2010.
Hmmm. MSM involvement. Does anyone else smell a media-directed honey trap here?
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
#3 Well it looks like she was crazy too, threatening another woman. So she may be beautiful athletic, and smart, but the General hooked up with an insane bitch.
My God I just hope he wasn't with her during the Bengahzi attack. Posted by Penguin
Broadwell....fly-over prom queen, valedictorian, USAMA [I too will be a GO someday] grad, gym rat, Harvard grad student, Ph.D candidate, reserve Military Intelligence officer, SOF/SMU wanna-bee, potentially bored, prime-of-life doctor's wife and mother, networks herself to the ultimate mentor Alpha-male, wants her piece of history, mates with Ph.D Alpha-male.
Insane? Not at all. Highly achieved reproductive selection, isolation, and speciation practitioner? Yes. Identifiable and exploitable by others? Yes of course.
Petraeus is so tied into Benghazi as the head of the CIA that this won't go offline and disappear. The sex angle will help keep the story alive and in the forefront. The MSM might even be interested this time around since they are not busy electing O.
Was Obama sitting in the WH, a detached and uninterested President to what was going on in Benghazi or is he a guy who is handicapped to make a decision? Is this just another example of kicking things down the road hoping they will go away?
Posted by: Au Auric ||
11/11/2012 10:17 Comments ||
"Petraeus is so tied into Benghazi as the head of the CIA that this won't go offline and disappear"
The thing to remember about Petraeus is this - he was loyal to his own guys. When the CIA surfaced the story that they had requested help 3 times in Benghazi - Patraeus did not tell them to can it. He didn't come down on his own people. He bucked it up to a higher level. Good for him.
One interesting thing about the photos in the article is how much happier Ms. Broadwell seems with Gen. Petraeus than with her husband.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
11/11/2012 12:08 Comments ||
In 48 hours, we've learned from the MSM more info about Ms Broadway than after two months, they have reported on Woods, Doherty and Benghazi. As Krauthammer stated, "There's sex involved so now they have to report it."
Wonder how many of their readers/watchers are wondering, "What the heck is this Benghazi?" Well, I know, but I can dream.....
Fox News is breaking a Sunday exclusive that the lid was blown off Petraeus' career by a threatening emails from one Petraeus mistriss, Broadwell, to another now disclosed Petraeus mistress, Kelley.
IF that's true - and who knows once these cr** reporters start playing their games - then Petraeus has kore to worry about from his women than the Gov't. The CIA and FBI can only fire him. Multiple mistresses ... will probably kill him :-)
I wouldn't take this too seriously unless he confirms.
Getting tired of conspiracies that don't turn out true either....I'll listen but I haven't seen anything to indicate a anything yet...looks like he had an affair....who has time for an affair these days....especially him.
Posted by: Large Darling of the Antelope3345 ||
11/11/2012 18:33 Comments ||
Multiple mistresses? When did he have time? As I recall he had a bout with prostate cancer a few years ago. That's about a year of time out. After radiation sometimes the libido goes although it doesn't seem so in this case. Petraeus deserves some slack. He's served his country well and has been at war for nearly a dozen years. On this veteran's day, I'd say thanks!
No. It was all ego for her. She worshiped him and got involved with him because she wanted to BE him. That's why she looks happier with him, and didn't give a rat's patoot about her family, which she probably came to regard as a mistake. Her whole identity hinged on his approval. If he eats a bullet, I bet she will too.
[Dawn] THE Hizbul Mujahideen leader Syed Salahuddin's comments on panchayat institutions in Kashmire have caused disquiet in that region.
He told Riyaz Wani of Tehelka: "Panchayat institutions are meant to take care of local affairs. But this is not their role in Kashmire, where they are exploited to serve pro-India political parties and build vote banks. What is of real concern for us is that panchayats are projected as a referendum on Kashmire. New Delhi advertises the participation in panchayat polls as yet another instance of Kashmiris reposing their faith in India." India hopes "to declare things normal in Kashmire by holding panchayat polls in the state".
These remarks fall into three parts. First comes a fair recognition of the role of panchayat members to take care of local problems. Kashmiris sorely need attention to their mounting problems near their very homes.
Secondly, Syed Salahuddin fears their exploitation by New Delhi "as a referendum on Kashmire. This is far from the truth. For decades New Delhi did cite rigged elections to the Kashmire assembly as proof of popular ratification of accession to India. But beginning with the PDP (Peoples Democratic Party) government's assumption of power in 2002, that myth has been buried.
The PDP's Mufti Mohammed Sayeed made it plain that the polls were no substitute for a political settlement of the Kashmire dispute with the consent of India, Pakistain and the people of Kashmire. Chief Minister Omar Abdullah of the National Conference has said the same thing repeatedly. If assembly polls cannot be cited as a ratification, surely still less can polls to local bodies; whether municipalities or panchayats.
During the campaigns for elections to the assembly in 1996, 2002 and 2008, correspondents from New Delhi noted with some dismay that voters in the queues were shouting "azadi". In the voters' eyes there was no contradiction between that cry and their vote. The cry represented their abiding commitment; the vote gave them a right to demand the local MLA's response to their grievances.
Lastly and unfortunately, Syed Salahuddin also said: "Panches (village council members) and sarpanches (village council heads) are exploited by India to project Kashmire as pro-India, and as such, they will continue to be targeted. No matter how much the government tries to secure them, they will still be attacked."
Only a few days earlier Syed Ali Shah Geelani, whom Syed Salahuddin respects, denounced on Sept 15 the killings of panchayat members. "It is our longstanding policy that we have always condemned innocent killings," he said, adding, "no person should be killed for his political ideology".
Syed Salahuddin's remarks reflect both impatience and distrust. These sentiments are widely shared by separatists in Kashmire. They fear that the lapse of time would induce 'normality' which would end the Kashmire dispute.
This reflects a profound distrust of the people. It is widely accepted that even if militancy were to end altogether popular alienation from New Delhi would survive; so deep is their alienation.
I was present at a convention of elected sarpanches at Yusmarg in the Badgan district of Kashmire on June 23 and 24 this year. They clamoured for real power from an insensitive Kashmire government. Engineer Abdul Rashid was lustily cheered when he demanded azadi. This independent MLA has made a mark in the assembly with his brave speeches. Can you imagine the impact of a score of such MLAs backed by the Hurriyat leaders?
The separatist leaders do not realise that their tactics of hartal ... a peculiarly Bangla combination of a general strike and a riot, used by both major political groups in lieu of actual governance ... s impose a heavy toll on the people's patience and economic costs which they find increasingly hard to bear. But such is the mindlessly negative approach of some of the leaders that they begin to tremble whenever there is some movement in other fields.
We are constantly treated to inane cries such as 'LoC trade is no solution', 'cultural exchanges give a false impression of normality', etc.
Can the 65-year-old Kashmire dispute be resolved immediately under pressure from such negative assertions? These leaders and, for that matter, the academia also, do not take even a brief holiday from the shouting of old sterile slogans and instead devote themselves to devising creatively new approaches which will chip away at the deadlock by gradual degrees.
Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who staunchly opposed British rule, won an election to the Bombay Municipal Corporation on March 10, 1904. The stalwarts of old first excelled in municipal bodies. Both the two major political parties, the Congress and the Mohammedan League, participated in the general elections of 1937 and 1946 under the British dispensation and ran ministries in different provinces.
Would independence have been won if the League and the Congress had boycotted the polls and demanded a solution first? More to the point. Would the Quaid-e-Azam have achieved his goal, Pakistain, if he had not shown a spirit of compromise by accepting the Cabinet Mission's Plan of May 16, 1946? The Congress wrecked it.
No power can deprive Kashmiris of their rights, provided only that they close their ranks and adopt realistic politics. History has been unkind to them.
Their future is to be decided by an agreement between India and Pakistain -- subject of course to the Kashmiris' approval. They must raise their voice to force these states to stop wasting time and finalise the elements of the five-year-old consensus. The best must not be made enemy of the good.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/11/2012 00:00 ||
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.