Obama's 'Layoff Bomb' Is Starting To Go Off

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by pspr, Nov 1, 2012.

  1. pspr

    pspr

    In June, a diffident and self-deluded President Obama claimed that "the private sector is doing fine." Last week, the private sector responded:

    Speak for yourself, buster. Who needs an "October Surprise" when the business headlines are broadcasting the imminent layoff bomb in neon lights?

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last Tuesday that employers issued 1,316 "mass layoff actions" (affecting 50 workers or more) in September; more than 122,000 workers were affected overall.

    USA Today financial reporter and former IBD writer Matt Krantz wrote that "much of the recent layoff activity is connected to what's been the slowest period of earnings growth since the third quarter of 2009."

    Some necessary restructuring is under way in response to the stagnant European economy. But more and more U.S. businesses are putting the blame — bravely and squarely — right where it belongs: on the obstructionist policies and regulatory schemes of the blame-shifter-in-chief.

    Regulatory Burden

    Last week, Ohio-based auto parts manufacturer Dana Holding Corp. warned employees of potential layoffs amid "looming concern" about the economy.

    President and CEO Roger Wood specifically mentioned the walloping burden of "increasing taxes on small businesses" and the need to "offset increased costs that are placed on us through new laws and regulations."

    Case in point: ObamaCare. The mandate will cost Dana, which employs some 24,500 workers, "approximately $24 million over the next six years in additional U.S. health care expenses."


    http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...ate-sector-not-doing-fine-as-layoffs-loom.htm
     
  2. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    I know this is anecdotal, but I felt like mentioning it anyway.

    When I was up in NC, I met with the guy developing the mountain. He has a rather large construction company, and employs 200 people. We got to talking about the election, and he said, unapologetically, that if Obama wins and he's forced to absorb additional health care costs, he will do so. But he will also fire 18 people, and reduce another 25 of them to under 30 hours a week to be able to pay for it.

    I couldn't help but wonder if politicians thought about it that way (of course they didn't) when they put the plan in action. Additionally, I was curious how those 43 employees took it when he mentioned to the company what his intent was. Did they vote Obama?

    I'm interested in the liberal argument to support Obamacare when we see this is what happens. RCG? La-bong? Any of you out there care to weigh in on this?
     
  3. They weren't real jobs anyway?
    Just more greedy rich people keeping what's not their's (ie wealth).
     
  4. I have not weighed in on Obamacare because we do not know how it will affect us. Most of us are not sure. I will say this. Tomorrow we are going to evict a client who's insurance company says they are going to stop paying for treatment at my facility. They want him gone tomorrow. If we discharge him, and we must, he chances of survival of his illness will be almost nil.

    Could the ACA prevent such episodes?
     
  5. Team Obama has a strategy. Delay, obstruct, mis-lead and distort any and every story until after the election. Obama wins this thing and it's going to get really ugly, really fast, as Obama has to start coming up with answers for everything he is now ignoring. MSM and dems will circle the wagons for sure, but a bunch of pissed off repubs in congress will be looking for blood, and very unlikely to just let this stuff go unchecked.
     
  6. lindq

    lindq

    The small business owners I am in contact with tell me the same thing. Also, my wife is a Realtor, and has 3 business owners holding off on signing contracts until after the election. Obama wins, and they walk on the deals.
     
  7. pspr

    pspr

    So, they want him to go to a better facility for treatment? I see. :D
     
  8. It was about money, and nothing else. Could the ACA have avoided that?
     
  9. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

    Thanks for responding, mate. Look, I think there are two separate issues here. The first is whether or not universal health care is needed in some fashion, and I think it is. Again, in some fashion.

    The second, more important issue at the moment is whether the ACA was poorly designed because it had to be rammed through and jammed down the throat of folks. It clearly did not take the employer cost aspect into account, and is certainly will not be good for job creation. Personally, I'd rather be employed and covered by my old policy, vs fired and losing all benefits whatsoever, including pay.
     
  10. This is obvious. Intrade.com has Obama ahead by a mile. He got quite a boost from this recent storm...wow, he was lucky in the timing of it.
     
    #10     Nov 1, 2012