The rich got their tax cuts, now they will start hiring big time. Not because

[theophilus]

tax cuts work but because the rich are greedy bastards. They did hold our economy hostage. Now the ransom has been paid. There will be a "boom" for a while.....then another "bust". Pay off your debts and save what you can. The next bump might be worse than the last. If the middle and lower classes rise up, maybe we can change things. Oh, well.

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. What makes you think they are going to start hiring?

[theophilus]

2. The major corps have been sitting on over a trillion dollars for

no good reason. They have been champing at the bit but, imo, they held off until the tax cuts were extended. The endgame is to defund all government regulation. Will they succeed? Who knows?

[FreakinDJ]

12. But the Major Corps got their "Tax Loophole" too

bet ya $50 bucks 90% of that $Trillion goes to China

This is the same thing that happened in 2004 when all those greedy Corps were waiting on the Bush Tax Cuts to open up that loop hole. Then as in now - all the money was invested in China

[leveymg]

31. Multinational corps - There won't be a huge round of US hiring. Money goes to stock buybacks and

foreign expansion.

[taught_me_patience]

39. Corporate debt is at an all time high

pretty convenient to ignore that side of the balance sheet.

[Statistical]

3. It is getting harder and harder to meet production goals under current employment levels.

By not hiring companies will soon face losing marketshare to competitors.

Shareholders will demand continued growth in both revenue and profits. Companies that don't perform are punished.

[Hannah Bell]

33. there are no "competitors". the supposed competitors are just other front companies

the same capital is invested in.

i.e. the same folks making the brands are making the house brands.

the same people that used to make electronics in the us now make them in china.

microsoft & macintosh collude; they don't compete.

[Statistical]

36. You are funny Hannah.

[Hannah Bell]

41. so are you.

[eleny]

9. If the masses don't have money they can't buy things

Even the people who are sick with greed will have to finally make that connection. No customers = no wealth for them.

[charlyvi]

4. They won't hire if there's no demand

They don't create jobs out of the goodness of their hearts. Each worker costs them money -- if there's no demand, there's no job.

[theophilus]

5. But, almost magically, if millions get a job.....demand jumps up.

Who woulda figured? I feel that many of those fired, early on, were fired "preemptively".

[charlyvi]

19. If millions get a job?

In what universe. There would be no economic problem if millions of people could get a job. The point is, no one will create a job if there is no present need for it. There is no demand. From a business perspective, it would be stupid to create jobs for no reason.

[gmoney]

6. No, they won't start hiring until Obama is out

just for spite...

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. Sadly I believe you are correct

[BlueJac]

22. Wrong...

failed economic policies is the cause. If we stay on the same course it will not matter who is running this failing Democracy.

[elocs]

7. What happen with all the jobs they were supposed to have created with the biggest tax cut in history

ten years ago? I have a conservative friend who told me last year that the rich needed tax cuts so they could create jobs.

So they keep getting tax cuts, but where are the jobs? Yes, insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

[Wilms]

10. You are making the exact, relevant, argument.

Not one media discussion or politician's pronouncement (notably, Democrat's) that I have heard, makes it.

Makes one wonder. :shrug:

[BrklynLiberal]

14. When it comes to messaging and framing the issues, the Dems are pathetically incompetent.

The repukes tell lies more convincingly than the Dems tell the truth....IF the Dems ever even bother to try to spread the true facts around.

[Habibi]

34. A freeper-type on a local newspaper message board

explained it to me thusly: since the UE rate under Bush was ~5%, there was no *need* to create jobs. Voila!

[hobbit709]

11. I'm not holding my breath waiting.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. I am not so optimistic about your prediction.

They got their money and will sock it away.

[Statistical]

16. Socking it away is yielding next to nothing.

Shareholders aren't content to see a company like IBM become a giant money market account yielding <1%.

The demand from the street for more yield is real. Workforce has been cut to bare bones. It is unlikely significant bottom line growth can be achieved year over year by cutting more jobs. Eventually companies will be forced to hire.

CEO and other executives are paid 50% to 90% in stock options. When the street loses confidence in a companies ability to deliver growth the stock will be hit and hit hard making those options worthless.

[Hawkeye-X]

26. What the shareholders ought to do....

is force all the executive, making over 50% of the salary in profits to resign effective immediately, replaced with CEO's at 10x the amount of the highest paid blue collar worker.

Use the remaining profits to hire more workers.

[katnapped]

15. They're not going to hire

Not until we have to work for a dollar an hour, 80 hours a week, with NO sick leave ("get sick? find another job--you're fired!")

[butterfly77]

17. But,they still have to make the President..

look bad by not creating jobs.

[OHdem10]

18. They must have customers before they start hiring.

[charlyvi]

20. Exactly. It all comes down to demand, not supply. n/t

[BlueJac]

21. You only hire if there is demand..........

that isn't happening with wage freezes, unemployments, and rising medical costs. People don't have the money to stimulate the economy. Tax cuts have never created jobs, that is a myth and propaganda.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

23. I just posted this on another thread, but I believe what

is going to happen next, since we know tax cuts don't create jobs, we are going to get a big push to eliminate, or lower the minimum wage, do away with overtime regulations, do away with employer provided heath plans, do away with worker and environmental protections, get rid of the consumer rights (to sue). Any combination of the above from the repubs to "create jobs", pushed by a willing sycophant media. For our own good, of course. :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[katnapped]

28. I've already said that

Plutocrats are going to blame all of us for "wanting too much" and not working for "what's realistic"

[niceypoo]

24. Your pushing a supply side meme

That tax cuts stimulate. Tax cuts got us here, they wont save us.

[jwirr]

25. And they want it to look like the repug takeover of congress is working.

[JDPriestly]

27. Businesses here are closing down. They will not reopen.

People buy things on the internet nowadays. So the smaller shops are closing. Besides, the quality of products in the stores is so poor that shopping for more than necessities would not be much fun even if we did have money. I went shopping with my daughter and could not believe how ugly the clothes in expensive stores were. Just downright cheap and ugly. That is how they got people to buy this year. They sold the cheapest trash they could find.

[unblock]

29. businesses will start hiring when and only when hiring is necessary to make more profit.

if they can get the job done without hiring, they will.
additional hiring means more expenses, so they will only do it if the additional hiring predictably brings in more additional revenue than additional expenses. this virtually means that they will not start hiring until the consumer market shows real signs of growth. which, in turn, remains a challenge while unemployment is so high.

finally, they will continue to try to do their hiring cheaply, including, directly or indirectly, in places like china and india before the in u.s. because labor in the u.s. remains more expensive desipte rising costs overseas and a lower dollar.

notice that tax rates don't play much of a role in the decision. if hiring is profitable, they'll do it; if hiring is not profitable, they won't. marginal tax rates largely affects HOW MUCH of their profit they get to keep, not whether or not hiring makes a profit at all. if anything, high tax rates encourage hiring, because it reduces risk, because any loss is deductible and those deductions are more valuable at higher tax rates.

[WinkyDink]

30. Hiring? Why? Are these corporations suffering now minus employees? Minus paying for health-coverage,

pensions, SS, ....?

Corporations HATE EMPLOYEES! Workers STEAL PROFITS FROM THE INVESTMENT CLASS, GET IT?!

[eridani]

32. They won't hire unless there is demand

Income equality has permanently suppressed demand

[mmonk]

35. They'll hire when they have demand.

That's the half of economics the supply siders leave out.

[Motown_Johnny]

37. I doubt it, they don't think as a group

they only do what is best for themselves and being the first to start hiring isn't beneficial.

[Skittles]

38. they're hiring in India and China

here, not so much

[Quantess]

40. Oh, sure...now that they get to keep their tax cuts, they'll start hiring en masse.

:spray:
You were being sarcastic, right?