How President Obama can create jobs...
- Thread starter Fred Sherman
- Start date
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
What's nonsensical is raising taxes to create jobs. Spending $125K to create a $45K job? Whats' the ROI on that? It'll bring in $6,750 in tax revenue so it will 18 1/2 years before that government breaks even.
This is the kind of idiocy that makes no sense. Government can't "create" jobs.
This is the kind of idiocy that makes no sense. Government can't "create" jobs.
jadmperry
Well-known member
I don't understand this point, aren't military members government workers? What about TSA workers? FAA workers, FBI agents, Park Service, Census Bureau, or anyone else who goes to work and collects a paycheck? If so, how is it that the government can't create jobs? It is done all the time whenever the government hires someone. In a similar vein, when the government awards millions or billions to Lockheed, Pratt & Whitney, KBR, etc., and they in turn hire a worker, is this not government creating jobs?
If the point is that long term, the government should not spend so much in order to reduce deficit, and thereby should not be looking to hire, okay, I understand the argument. But I flat out don't get the statement that government can't create jobs.
If the point is that long term, the government should not spend so much in order to reduce deficit, and thereby should not be looking to hire, okay, I understand the argument. But I flat out don't get the statement that government can't create jobs.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Wow, that movie is based on complete socialist idiocy. No wonder it won an award. Much like Obama's Nobel Peace Price for nothing.
ChemicalKicks
Well-known member
You look just fine drinking that beer in your avatar, is it beer?
Diana
Active member
Socialist? How so?
Please elaborate.
How would you explain the debt? Who are we indebted to? Why are we borrowing at interest from the Federal Reserve, a private bank? (Don't let the name fool you).
Please explain to me why our municipal governments are borrowing from Dexia, a bank in Brussels, the largest municipal bond holder in the world? Explain to me why foreign banks received $300 billion of the TARP bailout ($53 billion plus went to Dexia)? And why did a Bloomberg reporter have to sue the Fed to get the information about the bailout under the Freedom of Information act?
It's easy to throw around labels, much harder to make an intelligent argument.
I don't have answers. I have a lot of questions, as do many in the U.S. and around the globe about the debt crisis we're all stuck paying for, as we lose our jobs and our homes. The documentary offers some food for thought. Do you have a problem with that?
Will you label the director of "The International" a socialist, too?
jadmperry
Well-known member
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PENTAGON_JOB_CUTS?SITE=JRC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
This is what I mean by the government can "create" jobs. Military cuts would result in increased unemployment rate. I am only saying that the government can create jobs. Whether the government is the best entity to do so is a completely different point. That is, I am not arguing the wisdom of having the government as a large(r) employer, especially over the long term. Though, like I argued earlier, Keynesian economics says that in the short term, given our current situation, the government should be spending to create jobs.
This is what I mean by the government can "create" jobs. Military cuts would result in increased unemployment rate. I am only saying that the government can create jobs. Whether the government is the best entity to do so is a completely different point. That is, I am not arguing the wisdom of having the government as a large(r) employer, especially over the long term. Though, like I argued earlier, Keynesian economics says that in the short term, given our current situation, the government should be spending to create jobs.
Diana
Active member
Spending cuts only take more money out of circulation. That's the exact opposite of what we need to stimulate the economy. At a time when banks won't lend, consumers won't spend, companies won't hire, and the rich won't pay their fair share of taxes, the government has to step in. It has to spend to create jobs in order to get money back into circulation. And besides, the country desperately needs a new infrastructure. Now's a good time to build it.
The Right is just using the deficit as an excuse to "starve the beast." It's been the plan all along.
The Right is just using the deficit as an excuse to "starve the beast." It's been the plan all along.
Wired
Active member
1. Public Work Projects like they did in the US Depression.
-Clean streets, build infrastructure, etc.
-REPAIR infrastructure - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2009529...conomy/t/us-highway-system-badly-need-repair/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-24-bridges_N.htm
If they say we don't have enough to clean / repair it all, and can't pay everyone? Too bad, but at least this way we're screwing ourselves in a more positive fashion.
2. Legalize and tax pot (only for people 25 and older or something). Personally I can't stand it or people who smoke it, but look at California or Sweden to the financial benefits and social / criminal impact. No, I don't keep up on that stuff, but I know a former cheeba monkey who claims to follow that crap.
As for unemployment, I was unemployed for a span of time twice. Both times I worked my ass off talking with recruiters, friends, filling out job applications all over the place. More often than not I didn't get the position or was even considered (and I only applied for IT jobs) because I was "over qualified". For ****'s sake, I was over qualified to do the same job I did 6 months prior, at a lower rate than what they were offering?!?! That was the only time people ever noticed I have a master's degree, when it made me "over qualified". Not once has it helped me GET a job.
On a side note, has anyone ever thought about or theorized on what would happen if someone (fat cat, corporation, government) started a new town, and only hired the unemployed / financially downtrodden to build the town and work there? Think Habitat for Humanity but on a much larger scale.
-Clean streets, build infrastructure, etc.
-REPAIR infrastructure - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2009529...conomy/t/us-highway-system-badly-need-repair/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-24-bridges_N.htm
If they say we don't have enough to clean / repair it all, and can't pay everyone? Too bad, but at least this way we're screwing ourselves in a more positive fashion.
2. Legalize and tax pot (only for people 25 and older or something). Personally I can't stand it or people who smoke it, but look at California or Sweden to the financial benefits and social / criminal impact. No, I don't keep up on that stuff, but I know a former cheeba monkey who claims to follow that crap.
As for unemployment, I was unemployed for a span of time twice. Both times I worked my ass off talking with recruiters, friends, filling out job applications all over the place. More often than not I didn't get the position or was even considered (and I only applied for IT jobs) because I was "over qualified". For ****'s sake, I was over qualified to do the same job I did 6 months prior, at a lower rate than what they were offering?!?! That was the only time people ever noticed I have a master's degree, when it made me "over qualified". Not once has it helped me GET a job.
On a side note, has anyone ever thought about or theorized on what would happen if someone (fat cat, corporation, government) started a new town, and only hired the unemployed / financially downtrodden to build the town and work there? Think Habitat for Humanity but on a much larger scale.
jadmperry
Well-known member
Not specifically for unemployed at large. But, I was recently thinking about the Veterans Affairs efforts to help homeless veterans and thought about a larger scale idea where there was something like a project that combined both housing and job training. Something like a housing project combined with a training/work program (maybe manufacturing or farming, etc., that was self-sustaining). I thought that this would be a cool idea. A place where veterans could work, learn and work in a job that would be a "feeder" for skilled/living wage work.
el canadiano
Active member
Germany:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/unemployment-rate
(Source from Deutsche Bundesbank)
Quite the opposite, actually. She actually can. Germany has been outputting more than essentially any other nation in the G7.
Finland:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/finland/unemployment-rate
(Source from European Commission)
Australia:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate
(Source from Australian Bureau of Statistics)
Canada:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/unemployment-rate
(Source from StatsCan)
Netherlands:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/netherlands/unemployment-rate
(Source from Dutch Statistics Office)
France:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/france/unemployment-rate
(Source from INSEE National Statistics Office)
UK:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate
(Source from UK Office for National Statistics)
Japan:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/unemployment-rate
(Source from Ministry of Internal Affairs)
China:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/unemployment-rate
(Source from Ministry of Labor and Social Security of the People's Republic of China)
Of the countries you've listed (I've thrown in Canada as well), Germany and Australia have defied, essentially what you have said. Both (like Canada) threw in a Stimulus package back in 2008 or 2009. The same went with Canada, whose unemployment reached pre-recession numbers in January. Also, as stated, Noda has not been in power for very long, and Mark Rutte also hasn't been in power for more than a year. I also threw in China because their stimulus package, believe it or not, was twice as aggressive as the United States' in comparison.
Or throw in the United Arab Emirates. If you look at their growth, what have they been doing? Spending like crazy, but for what? Infrastructure, or one of the easiest industries to essentially stimulate.
The same went for Canada, Germany, and Australia. In Canada, our Economic Action Plan was essentially just that. You go down anywhere in Canada in 2009 or 2010 and you'll see all these signs going everywhere, and that's essentially the difference between a renovated public (or private) community centre or building in Canada and a run-down, out-of-business hotel in Florida.
Or tell it to other historic governments, such as Franklin Delano Roosevelt or (unfortunately) Adolf Hitler's government (in comparison to 1920s Germany and its sanctions with the Treaty of Versailles), or any participating government in World War II. The thing in common is that they invested their natural resources (in this case, money, with the exception for Hitler) when the private sector was hoarding in money. In good times, a stimulus package is otherwise not needed.
This was essentially John Maynard Keynes' work back in the 1930s, and one of his findings.
That said, Canada was in fact in a better condition than the United States. It was, after all, running a surplus and its banks weren't heavily deregulated (I don't believe in supply-side economics for a lot of reasons) and we weren't borrowing like crazy...
...yet.
HydraulicJack
Well-known member
Generally I agree that an effective government can use $$ to create meaningful job training and jobs, but when you follow the money these days, seems like a lot of those jobs are at slave wages, including a high percentage of the funds going to multinationals who create the slave wage jobs in countries other than the U.S. Great for campaign funding, but sux for the domestic economy. My two pennies which I thot I'd better spend here right away before their value drops even further!
The U.S. infrastructure is making a beeline for 3rd world status and I think it's B.S. to pay the markup to hire private corps for all of this work. An effective WPA without fraud and graft (yeah, I know it's a dream!) would really get the U.S. back on its feet and competitive, but that would p.o. the foreign- and multinational interests that own most of the US debt (ergo, owning the management of the country) and most of the American politicians, it seems.
Technically many of the "elected reps" should register as an agent of a foreign country, but of course they wrote waivers for themselves into the laws they create. Nice work when you can get it and are not enumbered by a conscience or loyalty to what used to be the U.S.
Ok, there's a nice big wad of fat or whatever you think it is, onto the fire.
el canadiano
Active member
Foreigners only own about 4 of the 14 trillion dollars of the US debt, roughly.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/21/who-owns-america-hint-its-not-china/
HydraulicJack
Well-known member
PS: Revoke the bizarre ruling that a corporation has all the rights of a human being. What a crock, and killed democracy. When was the last time a corporation was imprisoned, or executed? Oh sure they pay a fine here or there that is .nnn% of their profits, but that's just a small cost of doing business, and since the corp keeps the profits net of that, the ROI is killer (literally for its victims).
HydraulicJack
Well-known member
Prob is, the same people who run things also run the drugs.
HydraulicJack
Well-known member
I agree, but it only works though when the corporations aren't shipping all of the jobs out to the Phillipines or India or China or wherever. That money leaks OUT of the U.S. economy, and those wages don't get spent in the U.S., hence no multiplier effect.