NUMMI to close...no more California built Tacomas

What, they won't take California IOU's anymore??

 

I'm 38, wife is 39, and our daughter is 9 months. Most likely, if we actually do lose our jobs (it's almost a certainty at this point), we'll be moving back to NJ which I hate but so be it. There's a 12% unemployment rate here so finding another job is almost impossible.

Thanks for the well wishes.

 

Oh...no back to NJ. I heard on the local news today that NJ has a 12% unemployment rate too, couple that to the high cost of living yikes. Good luck, maybe things will turn out differently for the better for you.

 

When you have a president who does nothing but spend money and (shortly) raise taxes, it prevents any improvement in economic conditions. Generally, presidents have little effect on the economy but the one thing that helps it improve is by lowering taxes. Bush lowered taxes (and then spent too much money) and Obama is simply spending money that doesn't exist. The bottom line is, if they would just shut up and let a recession take it's course, we would be better off.

Someone mentioned Cali's taxes. That would be another example of govt run amok and affecting the economy in a negative way.

So yeah, the current president is at least partly to blame, absolutely.

 

Thanks. The idea would be to live with family and rent out the SC house. That's a long way off but I have so many things running through my mind now. At least we have 8 months. Most people that are laid off get no notice (like my sister, unemployed in NJ since Feb). 850 people here would be losing their jobs so I can't imagine what 4500 would do to a local economy like that in Cali.

 

Are you blaming everyone back to and including Reagan? Of both parties? Because you should be. Every single president since that time has been a heavyweight deficit spender. The only one that made a remote effort at curbing the problem was Clinton, and he only did it during his last year in office. It was quickly dismantled by Bush Jr.

Please note: I am not pro-Clinton nor a democrat. I am just stating the facts. The chart, if you are so inclined to view it:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Bush II was a champion spender, even amongst some distinguished company in the last 30 years. Obama seems to be continuing his style. The only facet of Obama's spending that makes it slightly (VERY slightly) less offensive to me than Bush's is that he's using the money to do something other than blow up brown people.

Right now, I'm far more angry at the US megabanks than the current administration, although the fact that they're not dragging Goldman over the coals is getting more and more rage-inducing by the minute.

The unfortunate truth that we have to make peace with is that corporations have purchased our government. We're just guests in this country now.

 

Here in Maple Shade, there are a lot of homes up for sale, with the re-occurring theme "Price Reduced...Motivated Seller" I'm nervous too, because I expect to have to move due to the military sometime next year; from which I'll have to eat about $20K-$30K loss on my house. Man I hope things work out for you....NJ isn't in a much better situation as you already know, but at least you have family here to help each other out. It looks as if the economy is going to get worse before it gets better.

 

That's true...Bush Jr wasn't a fiscal conservative by any means. Politicians should spend money as if they have to earn it. Two wars going on isn't helping the deficit, but Obama is spending at a higher rate than Bush did.....Raising taxes when unemployment is at 10% and the economy is down is a receipe for disaster.

 

Meh, as far as I'm concerned he can tax people making over 250k all he wants. I'm not in that demographic. My taxes are going to go down under the O-plan.

Trickle down was debunked a long time ago. The GOP needs to stop pretending it's a valid economic strategy. It's basically designed to trick ignorant people into giving all their money to wall street...we all see how well that worked out.

 

The strongest political power flows out the barrel of a gun.

 

Bad economic conditions, heck, horrible economic conditions don't get that way in six months. It takes about eight years.

 

I'm not in that demographic either, but the guy that pays my salary, health insurance, and matches my retirement contributions is. Raising taxes is never good. JMO.

 

I agree, less taxes are better.

It's a complicated problem. The REAL root of all of it is the ever expanding government. Real fiscal responsbility is not a hard thing, but it's political suicide to openly state you're going to cut military spending. Too many jobs depend on DOD money, and "doesn't support our troops" is an easy to digest soundbite for people to get mad about.

It's the ol' MIC that Eisenhower warned about. Eisenhower was a smart man. Could use him in office again.

 

That's a selfish outlook....pass the buck mentality. That's what's wrong with our country today. One day it's people making 250K, tomorrow it will be 150K.

 

I agree. However, it's what the top 5% wealthiest have been doing to the rest of us for the past 3 decades.

Time for some payback. Tax 'em until they have to live like the rest of us. Won't bother me one bit. I am the rest of us.

And yes, the problem with this country is that it has become so overrun with corporatism that you have to actively take the strategy of screwing the competition just to survive and live comfortably.

All I can say in my defense is that it's a much easier maze to navigate when you're good at being a selfish dick.

 

Somebody like Eisenhower wouldn't be able to get elected in today's world...too conservative. Also you denounce Regan's trickle down economics? Do you even understand how "trickle" down economics works? If we applied the principles to the case of California, lowering taxes and in turn lower operating costs at the NUMMI plant, we might not even be having this discussion to begin with.

 

Disagree....the on;y person who's going to help out jandrews...is jandrews....all these folks who invested in Wall Street put a lot of their money and fate into somebody else's hands......i.e. Bernie Madoff....have I lost money the past couple of years, sure, but I watched the markets carefully, and for the most part am even right now.....once the markets turn to a steady state, I fully expect to start turning a profit.....bottom line is, you have to put careful research and time into studying and understanding the market if you don't want to be taken to the cleaners. I will admit a little luck doesn't hurt either.

 

.........IBTL..............

 

Well, this is a tough question to answer.

I understand the theory that proponents of "trickle down" commonly refer to - in a nutshell, you inject a lot of money in at the high level...companies, etc, and it makes its way to the masses through the grist mill of the market. The company makes purchases, people get paid, etc.

The problem is that's not what happens. The way it actually works is:

The rich keep all the fucking money, and CEO compensation packages get bigger. The companies then take out loans to make payroll and cover expenses.

This is why the economy froze up when the credit markets did. All these businesses suddenly had nothing left in their line of credit to meet financial obligations. Since their cash on hand would only cover a tiny fraction of their costs, they were forced to shit themselves. Henry Paulson, meanwhile, decided that the best way to deal with this would be to have the government write him and a few of his mega-banker buddies some bigass checks with no congressional oversight or regulation.

The two events seem strangely unrelated to me.

Unfortunately, Geithner also seems to favor the "give all the money to the people who caused the problem in the first place" strategy. Refer to my previous post about corporate interests having bought the government of this country.

The PRINCIPLES of trickle down are fine. The problem is, no one applies them.

Exactly. That's why I have no problem with a plan that gives Jandrews a tax cut, even if it screws someone else.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Nice batch o' predictions you got there. Would prefer it was a batch o' money. See what I'm saying?

Not trying to be an asshole, but this is my point: A citizen in this country cannot secure a livable retirement without Wall Street. You are "forced" to gamble your money for a chance to pay bills in your advanced age when you can no longer work. Should a recession hit at the wrong time (say, two years prior to retirement) and your 401k becomes a 201k, good luck to you.

The system is rigged and gamed...you can put your money in their hands and *maybe* come out ok, or you can be guaranteed to have insufficient resources when you stop working, because money in the mattress falls victim to inflation. Take your pick.

 

You have it mostly right; except the original intent of "trickle down" wasn't for the government to "give" money to corporations. Rather it was for the government to cut taxes on the the top 10% of the country without raising taxes on the middle class. That action would create more business opportunities since their overall operating costs were cut by lower taxes; which would directly lead to more people being hired, new business' being created, and more money invested in the markets by companies and people. The biggest thing that the government needed to do for "trickle down" to succeed was to have a laissez faire attitude (hands off) This meant not raising the minimum wage, force companies to unionize.....sound familiar in today's world? Wages would be determined by the need for labor....i.e. work was available but no one was applying hence wages go up.....look at the Reagan Era 80-88.....during this timeframe, he managed to see unprecedented economic growth followign the Inflation we experienced during the Carter administration. What caused this growth to stop was the government started to regulate...raise taxes; especially capital gain taxes....and lastly mandate things like housing loans.

You are right, every administration has it's fault's in regards to the economy....but the biggest thing is too many Americans have depended on the teet of the government. Capitilism only succeeds when people take ownership for their success....not when the government chooses to control who has what.