How can this government create jobs to get this country moving forward again?

[killerbee99]

I really don't post much here, read a lot and sometimes do get sick of the bickering that occurs on this board, but I read nonetheless. However, my main question is this, how can this government create jobs to get this country moving forward again?

Personally, I don't have the answer to this question, some blame illegal alieans as costing the country billions of dollars and syphoning money from Americans; other blame tighter financial regulations as making it harder for businesses to make more money, thus not creating more jobs (even though the banks that were bailed out with public money are now being extremely tight with giving out credit to businesss, making it hard for them to expand and hire more people), it just goes on and on in a big circle with no end in sight.

Heck, even now with the unemployment benefits extension saga, where Republicans are saying we have a deficit, we can't spend anymore, and Democrats are like we need to help these people who have earned these unemployment benefits through their work before they got layed off; both sides have good arguements, but the bottom line is this " HOW CAN THIS GOVERNMENT CREATE JOBS OTHER THAN GOING WITH OUR VERSION OF THE NEW DEAL?

[Burgold]

I think the government has done much of what it can do. The answer now lies in the free market. There are a lot of companies that have refound their feet and have a strong stance, but they aren't hiring. They're making good profits while being lean. They don't see a need to change. If demand increased enough perhaps they would hire more maybe... but automation and computers kind of negate that too. Banks and lenders are also far more stable and making very good profits, but they also haven't let go of their chokehold.

Basically, it's our turn. Government can only provide part of the answer. Businesses need to hire. Consumers need to spend. Innovators and entrepeneurs need to create new markets.

[killerbee99]

I think the government has done much of what it can do. The answer now likes in the free market. There are a lot of companies that have refound their feet and have a strong stance, but they aren't hiring. They're making good profits while being lean. They don't see a need to change. If demand increased enough perhaps they would hire more. Banks and lenders are also far more stable and making very good profits, but they also haven't let go of their chokehold.

Basically, it's our turn. Government can only provide part of the answer. Businesses need to hire. Consumers need to spend. Innovators and entrepeneurs need to create new markets.

This is basically the way I feel, but some actually want to blame this administration for the high unemployment rate. I would just liek to see how they would boost employment rates without us having the financial meltdown we just experienced with loose regulations of the markets.

[DieselPwr44]

Business is waiting to see how much the Government is going to gouge them in tax increases along with the big tax that is the health care bill.

The water hose was dribbling to begin with, Government just kinked the hose to make matters worse.

[Burgold]

Blame is easy. It also sloughs off responsibility. The reason we're in this state started long ago... even before the Bush Administration. Some of what we're dealing with started 30 years ago and has been benignly pushed down the road.

There are definite short term catalysts that we can pin to actions and inactions of Bush. There are questions of whether Obama has done too much or too little. It seems to me that the boat has stopped sinking. That's good. The problem is that it's still far from sea worthy.

Those who blame aren't interested in America. They're interested in their agenda and accumulating power or avoiding responsibility.

[NoCalMike]

I was talking to my mom, who is a small business owner, and asked her what a tax cut would do to help her hire another worker. She said basically it wouldn't. She said most small businesses if given a tax cut, the money would go into a savings account to save in case of a rainy day, like say they are behind on rent and need to dive into the account. She also said the idea that a tax cut would automatically go into improving and upgrading the business and/or equipment is also false because until business and new business/customers itself dictates that they need to upgrade they usually don't do it. She said most likely the money from the tax cut is going straight into an account.

She said the only thing that creates a new job opening for most small business, is when they get more customers and business to the point where the demand is too much for them to keep up with.

I understand my mom does not speak for all small businesses, I just wanted to give you one small business owner's opinion from real life experience. She has been a small business owner most of her adult life. Various different businesses.

I agree with Burgold too though that some companies actually have been rebounding, and profits are going back up, but they are trying to get away with how much they can keep the squeeze on their current work force until the seal breaks. Some of this may be due to fear of slip back into recession, so I understand that viewpoint, but I think some of it also is that once workers get squeezed for more productivity and less pay, it usually hardly ever ends up going the other way, even when times are good. It just from then on out becomes expected, without more compensation.

[Destino]

We need a massive public works project. I say we build the great wall of Mexico. Not a fence but a massive wall, like a shorter but longer hoover dam, with inspirational quotes from our founding fathers ironically carved into the wall every 20 yards or so. Allow plenty of room for tourists to walk around on the wall and look down (figuratively speaking of course) on their southern neighbors. Think of the money we could raise with 1969 miles of those little binocular machines that require quarters. Plus Arizona would have to find something new to complain about. Perhaps blacks will reclaim their status as most persecuted minority again so that the racial debate can get back to the monochromatic style Americans have been enjoying since our founding fathers decided to avoided it almost entirely.

Another option would be to legalize marijuana and immediately start exporting it to nations such as Columbia and Mexico at cheaper rates than their well dressed domestic suppliers could ever hope to compete with. We'll start a new drug war and pattern it entirely after the most dangerous weapon the US has ever created: Walmart. Sosa will never be able to maintain his army and compete with our price roll backs. Workers around the world will experience a massive drop off in productivity and hopefully send jobs back to the US were Americans have been focused on going to work high and not getting caught for 40 years.

[twa]

The govt cannot create meaningful jobs,O's actions have done nothing to create a atmosphere conducive to hiring and expanding.
His choices and policies have instead cost ten's of thousands jobs in the private sector.
Keep preaching populist bs and creating uncertainty in the business establishment and then keep wondering why jobs aren't appearing:beatdeadhorse:

The current direction and regulatory climate fosters unease and uncertainty compounded by the healthcare circus act.

Enjoy the fruits of your choices.

[aREDSKIN]

Very simply, eliminate uncertainty.

[twa]

Very simply, eliminate uncertainty.

Yes, but that is rather hard to do when the idiots in charge are flailing about.

[killerbee99]

The current direction and regulatory climate fosters unease and uncertainty compounded by the healthcare circus act.

Enjoy the fruits of your choices.

How is this preventing businesses from hiring people?

[killerbee99]

Very simply, eliminate uncertainty.

Ok, how would YOU eliminate uncertainty, if you were president?

[twa]

How is this preventing businesses from hiring people?


It does not prevent it,nor does it encourage it.

I ,nor many other businesses, need to hire here to make money.
The trick is to make us see value in it over simply letting money work for us in a more favorable locale.

Care to guess why Texas is attractive to business investment? (if O doesn't screw that up as well)

[DjTj]

Care to guess why Texas is attractive to business investment? (if O doesn't screw that up as well)Cheap illegal labor? :whoknows:

[sportjunkie07]

i dont think the govt needs to create more jobs, i think the jobs are there.

i have felt for the last 10 years or so that American society has become increasingly lazy.

the jobs are there, but people wont take them and would rather have free stuff from the govt. for a good example see Zoony's rant about food stamps.

[FanboyOf91]

Mark MBS to market and clean out the bad debt from the banking system. Any solution that ignores the glut of private debt will fail. Tax cuts and further stimulus packages are just more Keynesian pump-priming.

[twa]

i dont think the govt needs to create more jobs, i think the jobs are there.

i have felt for the last 10 years or so that American society has become increasingly lazy.

the jobs are there, but people wont take them and would rather have free stuff from the govt. for a good example see Zoony's rant about food stamps.

I would agree,with a slight twist, You too can create jobs.:)

Simply step up and put YOUR ass and cash(and even govt loans) on the line.

Get in the game instead of looking for a ride.

[Burgold]

I don't know that they are there. A big growing problem is that more and more businesses don't need people. Between computerization, machinery, robots, etc. businesses need fewer and fewer bodies. So many skillsets are becoming obsolete. Why should I hire you to do a job that a computer can do a thousand times faster and more precisely?

Soon, we'll need to redefine value. We'll need to figure out a different way to be productive. We are at the balance point to a whole new way of understanding society and work, but most of us and certainly the economy is locked in on a 19th Century modality of what "work" and "worth" is.

That's a problem. In 20 years, it will be an exponentially worse problem.

[McD5]

Small businesses, like me, aren't going to hire into the face of increasing taxes. It really is that simple.

Extend the Bush tax cuts, and I can hire. Don't, and I will do just fine as I am.

[boofMcboof]

1) Eliminate business taxes.
2) Eliminate income taxes.
3) Recover lost tax receipts through property, sales, capital gains (rentier class)
4) Reduce the the Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate sector's contribution to 3% of the GDP.
5) Remove all political incumbents bought out by the Wall Street.

[killerbee99]

Small businesses, like me, aren't going to hire into the face of increasing taxes. It really is that simple.

Extend the Bush tax cuts, and I can hire. Don't, and I will do just fine as I am.

But won't extending the Bush tax cuts add trillions more to the federal deficit and will this trickle down econmics businesses are pushing for work at all, or won't they just pocket the profits and not hire people anyways. I think there is good evidence to suggest that the trickle down economics of business tax cuts is not working to well. Heck, the tax cuts is there right now and there are really no jobs being created, so I think we should just let those tax cuts expire and save some money as it is, instead of continuosly dumping money into businesses that aint hiring people.

Maybe, we can ammend the tax cuts and having businesses that are hiring people qualify for it ?

Also, do the wealthy need more tax breaks or the middle class, bcos if you have a family making over $250,000 a year or more they aren't middle class, and I think those are the ones who benefit the most from the Bush tax cuts.

[twa]

I agree... we need to tax those evil rich people more.
That'll make em hire :beavisnbutthead:

Perhaps we need to appoint another commission to suggest the best way to go about it and expand the enforcement capabilities and manpower of the govt to manage the extra workload.....damn We are saved:silly:

[TheDoyler23]

Give every taxpayer 300 bucks. ;)

[McD5]

But won't extending the Bush tax cuts

Different businesses need different things. I can only speak for my business, and businesses that I help. But here are a few things that I never see discussed on this board which may shed a little light, or at least open up a different line of discussion:


1. Banks don't need to hire, and don't need to lend money to anybody.

Why aren't banks lending money? I have yet to see anyone answer this on ES--likely because they don't watch the markets or money.

The real reason why banks don't need to do anything but sit on their hands, is because they can borrow money from the government at nothing, and turn around and immediately buy US treasuries. That's a guaranteed 4%.

So get free money from the government(taxpayer money), and make 4%? Or loan money to an individual, and pray? Yeah, you would do the exact same thing the banks are doing. Take the risk-free 4%. Until short term interest rates are moved higher, that isn't going to change. Banks won't loan/hire.


2. These estate taxes are a huge deal. Words cannot describe just how huge they are. Generations of wealth are now at risk. Say I am a 60 year old individual, with $3 million to my name. Maybe I accumulated that from a life insurance policy when my parents died. Or maybe I have been successful in business.

If I die now, my kids will take over my $3 million business. If I die after Jan 1, 2011, Uncle Sam will take roughly 55% of that, depending on the state.

55%? Really? What for? To extend unemployment benefits for somebody else? Or so government can go and waste that money too? No thanks.


What it really comes down to, a truth no one can ever run from or change, is that businesses create jobs. Screw the businesses, and you can screw the jobs. Temporary census positions don't cut it. Nothing cuts it. The only thing that does cut it, is to help small businesses help this country.

It sucks, but the saying "A poor man never gave anyone a job" is just as true now as it has always been.

We have to stop attacking businesses.

[killerbee99]

2. These estate taxes are a huge deal. Words cannot describe just how huge they are. Generations of wealth are now at risk. Say I am a 60 year old individual, with $3 million to my name. Maybe I accumulated that from a life insurance policy when my parents died. Or maybe I have been successful in business.

If I die now, my kids will take over my $3 million business. If I die after Jan 1, 2010, Uncle Sam will take roughly 55% of that, depending on the state.

55%? Really? What for? To extend unemployment benefits for somebody else? Or so government can go and waste that money too? No thanks.




Ok, I see where you are coming from with you other points, but what does the estate tax have to do with anything? Like really?

[McD5]

Ok, I see where you are coming from with you other points, but what does the estate tax have to do with anything? Like really?

It destroys family businesses built up over generations, and puts people on the streets.

I have a 60 year old client right now, that has terminal cancer. She can't buy life insurance to absorb the hit.

She owns a family business that has been passed down from generation to generation. Honest, hard-working, regular people, busting their asses 10-12 hours a day.

When she passes, that business, and everything her familly has worked for, gets crushed.

How many people will be fired when she dies? The politicians don't like to focus on those "messy" finer points.

Do you think she is going to hire additional people right now? Or do you think she is more concerned about seeing everything her family has ever worked for go straight to hell, in the form of more taxes?

She is in a position to hire. She is the one we are hurting. And by hurting her, we are hurting ourselves. It is terrible policy.

[twa]

Ok, I see where you are coming from with you other points, but what does the estate tax have to do with anything? Like really?

It, like higher tax rates removes incentive to earn(which includes hiring)

Why risk what I have, and work harder for others benefit(aside from family and friends)?...that is not good business.

[killerbee99]

Ok, but I thought there were percentages attached to how much money gets taxed, and the 55% was if you had a total inheritance of $2 million or more....havent seen too many small businesses worth that much or more...just saying.....however I do think the esate tax might be repaled eventually but it is not going to happen now, when we have a deficit...cutting taxes is just going to cut of more revenue from the government to lower our deficit. At least to the best of my limited knowledge.

[Duckus]

2. These estate taxes are a huge deal. Words cannot describe just how huge they are. Generations of wealth are now at risk. Say I am a 60 year old individual, with $3 million to my name. Maybe I accumulated that from a life insurance policy when my parents died. Or maybe I have been successful in business.

If I die now, my kids will take over my $3 million business. If I die after Jan 1, 2010, Uncle Sam will take roughly 55% of that, depending on the state.

55%? Really? What for? To extend unemployment benefits for somebody else? Or so government can go and waste that money too? No thanks.



I think the top % is too high - but at the same time I don't feel sorry for someone inheriting $1,000,000 or more (is the exclusion rate 1 million in 2011, 2009 it was 3.5 million?).

Maybe it will motivate the recipient to do something with their lives? Motive to create even more and be successful themselves - instead of simply waiting until Grandpa dies and living off his hard work. I think too much wealth in our society is passed from generation to generation to people who have done nothing but wait for someone to die.

Maybe that is bitter talk from someone whose parents are poor :ols:. I might feel different had I been a rich kid.

[killerbee99]

It, like higher tax rates removes incentive to earn(which includes hiring)

Why risk what I have, and work harder for others benefit(aside from family and friends)?...that is not good business.

I would think people will want to work to make money, rather than worry how much money their kids will get....Raise them right, setup a trust fund for them, and if they want to continue the business, then they are welcome but should be ready to pay a tax for a business they didnt create but can still keep some of the value. My thinking on this issue.

[twa]

You object to family benefiting yet have no issue with govt benefiting:silly:

What exactly did the govt do to earn it?

[killerbee99]

I think the top % is too high - but at the same time I don't feel sorry for someone inheriting $1,000,000 or more (is the exclusion rate 1 million in 2011, 2009 it was 3.5 million?).

Maybe it will motivate the recipient to do something with their lives? Motive to create even more and be successful themselves - instead of simply waiting until Grandpa dies and living off his hard work. I think too much wealth in our society is passed from generation to generation to people who have done nothing but wait for someone to die.

Maybe that is bitter talk from someone whose parents are poor :ols:. I might feel different had I been a rich kid.

Yeah, same line of thought here as well. However, will repealling the esate tax help with creating jobs as well....back to trickle down economics, which I think has been shown not to work effectivelly, rather it just accumulates more wealth at the top, while the middle class coninue to suffer

[McD5]

Ok, but I thought there were percentages attached to how much money gets taxed

That is one of the biggest problems in all areas of our economy right now, and especially with taxes: Uncertainty.

The government isn't helping to clear anything up. Everything is on hold. No one knows what will happen Jan 1, 2011. Maybe the first $1 million will be exempt for her business. Maybe it won't.

The business community, and employers, need clarity. Instead, they get none. They do get a lot of new legislation that is likely to increase their costs.....but they have no incentive to do anything right now.

There needs to be some leadership. A plan. We have nothing except the fear of hire taxes.

[killerbee99]

You object to family benefiting yet have no issue with govt benefiting:silly:

What exactly did the govt do to earn it?

Won't the family benfit from inhereting a business of someone elses sweat, and not expect the government to get a cut of that, come on now, nothing is free, even the Obamacare, we still have to pay for that as well.

[twa]

I would think people will want to work to make money, rather than worry how much money their kids will get....Raise them right, setup a trust fund for them, and if they want to continue the business, then they are welcome but should be ready to pay a tax for a business they didnt create but can still keep some of the value. My thinking on this issue.

Why work for above my needs then?

You overlook both the business and earnings have already been taxed.
You excuse the govt taking what it did not create nor work for.:beatdeadhorse:

[killerbee99]

That is one of the biggest problems in all areas of our economy right now, and especially with taxes: Uncertainty.

The government isn't helping to clear anything up. Everything is on hold. No one knows what will happen Jan 1, 2011. Maybe the first $1 million will be exempt for her business. Maybe it won't.

The business community, and employers, need clarity. Instead, they get none. They do get a lot of new legislation that is likely to increase their costs.....but they have no incentive to do anything right now.

Their needs to be some leadership. A plan. We have nothing except the fear of hire taxes.

Hmmm, okay that is definitely an issue, so how can we achieve this clarity, is it on Congress, the President to get Congress and Dems to work, bcos even as a Democrat, I still care for my fellow man, and it sucks to see people struggling to find jobs and I know this is the number issue in this country .....jobs. If Obama can figure out a way to get this economy going again, it will be an awesome feeling to see us moving forward again.

[killerbee99]

Why work for above my needs then?

You overlook both the business and earnings have already been taxed.
You excuse the govt taking what it did not create nor work for.:beatdeadhorse:

It's called TAXES for a reason.

[McD5]

Won't the family benfit from inhereting a business of someone elses sweat, and not expect the government to get a cut of that, come on now, nothing is free, even the Obamacare, we still have to pay for that as well.

This business is a family-owned restaurant. It isn't an oil company. They employ 110 people. 55 of those people are going to be out of a job. Regular, not rich people. She wasn't handed anything. She manages the restaurant, and has worked there for nearly 40 years.



Why work for above my needs then?

You overlook both the business and earnings have already been taxed.
You excuse the govt taking what it did not create nor work for.:beatdeadhorse:

Bingo. This money has already been taxed. Why tax it again? To redistribute it to the big banks, from the hands of Americans? Take jobs from normal people, and give it to the banks to sit on?

[twa]

Won't the family benfit from inhereting a business of someone elses sweat, and not expect the government to get a cut of that, come on now, nothing is free, even the Obamacare, we still have to pay for that as well.


My family is a part of me and worth my sweat and tears,and for the govt to benefit from my death is bs...most certainly at that percentage.

Nothing is free but others earnings apparently:silly:,let them pay for it :ols:

[mrdoctor]

i dont understand either
but im not complaining.. i got offered!

[twa]

It's called TAXES for a reason.

And how many times must taxes be paid on the same money and property?

Wouldn't it be simpler for the govt to just issue us what they feel we are worth?:pfft:

I'm gonna retire from this thread for the sake of civility.

[PeterMP]

My family is a part of me and worth my sweat and tears,and for the govt to benefit from my death is bs...most certainly at that percentage.

Nothing is free but others earnings apparently:silly:,let them pay for it :ols:
Come on guys.

NOBODY with a brain, a decent account or tax lawyer pays anything close to the true estate tax.

Somebody here, I think zoony, once called it a tax for the stupid rich.

I do think Obama could step up and be a better leader in terms of trying to lay out a vision of where we are going and how we are going to get there and I'm all for simplifying the tax code.

[killerbee99]

And how many times must taxes be paid on the same money and property?

Wouldn't it be simpler for the govt to just issue us what they feel we are worth?:pfft:

I'm gonna retire from this thread for the sake of civility.

But Estate taxes on money that someone inherits without having to ever work for it; I mean wouldn't that be the same thing as making money from the stock market and not wanting to pay any taxes on it? I hope my analogy makes sense.

[THEREALTOR1]

kilerbee, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but for someone that claims not to post much, your way ahead in this thread (and that includes twa, who's been know to do his share of posting :) You posted a question, and i've read the responses, but you've managed to refute any/all responses to your question, to this point.

I have to wonder why you'd ask the question, when you don't really seem to be looking for an answer... :whoknows:

[McD5]

But Estate taxes on money that someone inherits without having to ever work for it; I mean wouldn't that be the same thing as making money from the stock market and not wanting to pay any taxes on it? I hope my analogy makes sense.

But who really gets hurt on estate taxes? Just the rich, right? The woman who dies? Nope, she is dead, and can't use the money.

The kids certainly get hurt. Who else gets hurt?

The employees of the restaurant, and their families, certainly get hurt. How many of them will now add to the unemployment figure?

But you and I don't work there, so it doesn't impact us, right? Just tax the other guy. Nope. Those people that just lost their job, might have been your potential clients. Now they can't buy your products or services. How many businesses is this going to hurt? How many regular people will lose jobs?


It breaks my heart whenever I see a politician referring to the estate tax as "taxing the rich." Why don't they tell the truth? Why not call it what it really is? "Causing more unemployment, and hurting all of us, and taking that money out of the economy?"

Had McCain been a better communicator, and had he explained this to people in an easy to understand manner, you wouldn't have seen fools cheer when this estate tax was mentioned. The ignorant still cheer it. If people knew what it was, they wouldn't want it. You mean I could lose my job?


So let's say she is taxed $1.5 million, for ease of math. How much of that $1.5 million taken from the economy, will find it's way back in?

Best case? Maybe some temporary census jobs. And of course, some pork. Add in a little government waste, and you aren't looking at a whole lot left.

So we go from $1.5 million being used in full-time, permanent jobs.....to part-time, census jobs that have a finite life. Brilliant! What a great idea!

Tax us more! Lose more jobs for the regular people! Wait, I mean tax the rich with the estate tax, it isn't us. It doesn't impact us, right?:ols:

[mojobo]

In my opinion the government can't really create really create jobs, it can only prevent jobs from being created. Right now in the U.S. there is a huge over consumption and under production/lack of savings and investments. If you really want to take a chunk out of unemployment you would cut the income tax in half, if not more. To help pay for this there should be massive spending cuts. Since I have no faith that this will happen with our current politicians at the very least it should be paid for by implementing a VAT or National Sales Tax. It's not the perfect solution, and there are a lot of other factors that play into this, but by taxing income from labor/savings/investments and taxing consumption a little more it will at least put is in the right direction to get through this mess.

The next thing I would do is get rid of a lot of the regulation that is being put into place. All these regulations are doing is giving big companies who spend millions on lobbying a chance to prevent competition in the markets. Regulations CAN be helpful, but not if they are used simply as a means of crony capitalism. The more and more regulations we see, the higher the barrier to entries there are in the markets. Without firms being able to enter and compete we get more expensive and lower quality goods, and it hurts our ability to compete in the global markets.

[elkabong82]

legalize it.

alcohol is worse yet legal, and this could be regulated through dispensaries much the same way that ABC does it with liquor

potential multi-billion dollar industry

[killerbee99]

kilerbee, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but for someone that claims not to post much, your way ahead in this thread (and that includes twa, who's been know to do his share of posting :) You posted a question, and i've read the responses, but you've managed to refute any/all responses to your question, to this point.

I have to wonder why you'd ask the question, when you don't really seem to be looking for an answer... :whoknows:


Not really trying to be disengenious (sp?), just trying to break it down and see how these suggestions might work. If it was really that easy, wouldn't it have happened by now? Just saying....

[skinfan13]

the government isn't supposed to create jobs.

the end.

[Jrew1223]

When I listen to liberals and conservatives on the radio, tv, etc. give their two cents on how to create jobs in America, the thing I come away with is that the various models discussed both detail policies of organization that result in something that we consider positive in economic terms. The problem that I see is that everyone is pointing to these theories of hypothetical success and no one is looking at reality and getting to the core of the issue by making real time decisions be it liberal or conservative...

The only way i can see lost overseas jobs coming back to America is if somehow we enacted protectionist policies making it more expensive for maufacturers to outsource...

I think most of us are in the mindset of approaching the employment issue within our national boundaries as the entire economic universe only consists of Americans and American jobs in the American economy. Now that there are trade agreements in place and technology has advanced, the average American is no longer in competition with other Americans for a job, the average American now has to compete with people all over the world.

The jobs that don't require a lot of education are disappearing and moving to places where people will perform the same task cheaper. The jobs that remain require a certain level of education and there aren't as many of them as there were in the manual labor sector...

So what do we do?



The bottom line is that, if we don't really understand the economic condition we are in currently, the implementation of either economic theory could be used by those who have the wealth to mainain theirs and manipulate the perceptions of reality to take as much from the average citizen as they can....

The conservative theory of tax cuts could cause the top percent of Americans to dramatically increase their wealth and widen the income gap. With enough wealth, one could purchase influence and perception through the media leaving the guy struggling to make ends meet to think if the rich just had more money the trickle down theory could reach him. The result is wealth/corporate state control which is pretty much the textbook definition of fascism.

The liberal theory has the danger of being attractive to the lazy part of the average American's attitude and if one day the people we elected to represent us figure out that the majority of Americans are dependent on the state in one way or another they could easily threaten to cut off support if we express disaproval. The result is a dictatorship.


If we want to make any progress we have to understand the actual situation we are in and not argue back and forth on what model is the answer when they both can lead to a place we don't want to go....



...and no I don't think the government can do anything to help create jobs in the economy that would be worth it and lasting.

[SnyderShrugged]

the government isn't supposed to create jobs.

the end.


Best post of the thread.

:beavisnbutthead:

[Thiebear]

I think the problem is they were supposed to 'get out of the way'
and they didn't... They've been running block in both words and actions for a year.

[Chicken Fried]

I think the government has done much of what it can do. The answer now lies in the free market. There are a lot of companies that have refound their feet and have a strong stance, but they aren't hiring. They're making good profits while being lean. They don't see a need to change. If demand increased enough perhaps they would hire more maybe... but automation and computers kind of negate that too. Banks and lenders are also far more stable and making very good profits, but they also haven't let go of their chokehold.

Basically, it's our turn. Government can only provide part of the answer. Businesses need to hire. Consumers need to spend. Innovators and entrepeneurs need to create new markets.
Ridiculous. Our free market has been slashed by the government. It's overly regulated and overly taxed. Companies can't hire with unnecessary tax burdens and the gov. over their shoulder telling them what they can and can't do.

[Chicken Fried]

the government isn't supposed to create jobs.

the end.Yes. Thank You.

[PeterMP]

Ridiculous. Our free market has been slashed by the government. It's overly regulated and overly taxed. Companies can't hire with unnecessary tax burdens and the gov. over their shoulder telling them what they can and can't do.
:ols:

People, it isn't 1980 any more.

[Thiebear]

:ols:

People, it isn't 1980 any more.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/job-losses-post-ww2.png

i don't know it looks the same.

[PeterMP]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/job-losses-post-ww2.png

i don't know it looks the same.
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you don't see/understand the differences between the current economic situation and the maliase suffered during the late 70's and that based on one graph you've decided they "look" the same.

[THEREALTOR1]

Not really trying to be disengenious (sp?), just trying to break it down and see how these suggestions might work. If it was really that easy, wouldn't it have happened by now? Just saying....

Fair enough.

Well being were just throwing ideas out, I wonder what would happen if we stopped revolving around the idea of employment/unemployment, employer/employee, and just put everyone under a general-contractor/sub-contractor status. I say we start with the state and federal governments. Lets say they employ approx. 10% of the work force in this country, and tomorrow they are going to lay off every single employee, but these people are not going to lose their jobs. They simply have to go and purchase a contractors license, prepare and submit a written bid for proposed work, and we can all move forward from there.

Think about all the money the governments (state and federal) would save. And if it works, we just abolish the entire system across the board for all companies public/private and we all become just a bunch of independent contractors running around.

It would also be interesting to see how peoples opinions might change after they have to give up their perks life health insurance, and 401k's, "work vehicles", and have to start paying for these items out of their own pocket. I wonder if Sally over in accounting would think that increasing the SE tax would still be a good idea?

[Titaw]

www.fairtax.org

It places the economic power where it belongs, in the hands of the consumer. It is not as crazy as one may think. Read it with an open mind, without bias.

[Busch1724]

First of the all the government can't create jobs as mentioned earlier, however it can stifle job expansion as mentioned earlier. The fact of the matter is there are so many factors contributing to the situation we're in now. It begins with FDR's creation of welfare, Johnson's Medicare and Medicaid, Reagan's beginning of deregulation, Bush's corporate welfare, Americans who are working making too much money, Americans living beyond their means, American dependancy on the goverment to help them out in perceived times of need, illegal immigration, and so many other things that are too long to mention.

It's a bipartisan thing and if the government would put lobbyism and agendas aside and use the ideals that most of us are taught by decent parents we could make some headway. However, it's a multi-generational process. It's a mindset that Americans who have become dependent on handouts from our government instead of their own savings must change. Our government representatives are service people voted by us, not entitled to a lifetime of benefits they can vote on themselves. We can't depend on the government, but they can set an example for those that are weak to follow.

With that said, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[hkHog]

I really don't post much here, read a lot and sometimes do get sick of the bickering that occurs on this board, but I read nonetheless. However, my main question is this, how can this government create jobs to get this country moving forward again?

Personally, I don't have the answer to this question, some blame illegal alieans as costing the country billions of dollars and syphoning money from Americans; other blame tighter financial regulations as making it harder for businesses to make more money, thus not creating more jobs (even though the banks that were bailed out with public money are now being extremely tight with giving out credit to businesss, making it hard for them to expand and hire more people), it just goes on and on in a big circle with no end in sight.

Heck, even now with the unemployment benefits extension saga, where Republicans are saying we have a deficit, we can't spend anymore, and Democrats are like we need to help these people who have earned these unemployment benefits through their work before they got layed off; both sides have good arguements, but the bottom line is this " HOW CAN THIS GOVERNMENT CREATE JOBS OTHER THAN GOING WITH OUR VERSION OF THE NEW DEAL?

They can't do anything. All they can do is reign in spending and get out of the way. Only the private sector can truly create sustainable jobs. Each new government job require six new private sector jobs to be created in order to pay that salary.

EDIT: From Canada:


Canada's economy continues to outshine other advanced countries as the unemployment rate unexpectedly dipped below 8 percent for the first time in a year and half.

Statistics Canada said Friday the country added a higher-than-expected 93,000 jobs in June and said the unemployment rate dropped to 7.9 percent.

Economists had expected a more modest 15,000 to 20,000 job increase and that the rate would remain at 8.1 percent. It's the second biggest gain ever recorded by the agency in terms of the number of jobs and comes after Canada added a record 108,700 jobs in April and 24,700 in May.

The government said the new jobs were evenly split between full-time and part-time positions.

In less than a year Canada has made up nearly all the jobs lost during the recession.

...

Desjardins said low interest rates, a stable banking system and the government's comparative strong fiscal position has spurred the recovery. Although its deficit is currently at a record high, the International Monetary Fund expects Canada to be the only one of the seven major industrialized democracies to return to surplus by 2015.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ik6tvLU9PxAXeEwHshNCifpC2SLgD9GRJVI00

Canada is rebounding precisely BECAUSE the government isn't going into massive debt trying to stimulate things.

[hkHog]

I think the government has done much of what it can do. The answer now lies in the free market. There are a lot of companies that have refound their feet and have a strong stance, but they aren't hiring. They're making good profits while being lean. They don't see a need to change. If demand increased enough perhaps they would hire more maybe... but automation and computers kind of negate that too. Banks and lenders are also far more stable and making very good profits, but they also haven't let go of their chokehold.

Basically, it's our turn. Government can only provide part of the answer. Businesses need to hire. Consumers need to spend. Innovators and entrepeneurs need to create new markets.

Wrong, the whole problem is that the government is too involved. They have borrowed way to much money and crowded out the private sector. Private companies are finding it hard to get loans and investment in order to expand and hire new workers. What's more, the government has gotten involved in every aspect of businesses by changing the rules regarding health care, regulations, and promising cap and trade and tax changes. Companies must plan ahead but the government is creating more uncertainty at every step. They have no idea what the tax and regulatory codes will be like in just six months time so it is impossible for them to move ahead with new hiring or expansion. The government is currently the number one obstacle to a strong private sector rebound and increased private sector employment.

[deejaydana]

There are very real limits to how much gov't can simply 'create jobs' out of thin air. The best avenue, in my mind, is limited gov't involvement . I guess my answer then is simple: gov't creates jobs best when the get the **** out of the way.

[PeterMP]

They can't do anything. All they can do is reign in spending and get out of the way. Only the private sector can truly create sustainable jobs. Each new government job require six new private sector jobs to be created in order to pay that salary.

EDIT: From Canada:



http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ik6tvLU9PxAXeEwHshNCifpC2SLgD9GRJVI00

Canada is rebounding precisely BECAUSE the government isn't going into massive debt trying to stimulate things.
Or maybe the Canadian economy is recovering faster because it was never in as bad as shape because the GOVERNMENT regulations on the banking industry prevented the creation of as large of a housing bubble, which means their real estate market didn't crash as badly as ours?


**EDIT**
Of course it is also possible, you are just wrong (depending on how you want to define "massive"):

Canada: Coalition Agrees on $30 Billion Stimulus Package

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/262887

[Darth Tater]

The government cannot really create any jobs. At best, any job the government provides (this especially means jobs created through the government outsourcing program known as "privitization") must by definition destroy another potential job. At worst, it can provide meaningless "jobs" which could prevent future job creation. The only thing our government can do is balance the budget, lower taxes and eliminate most privitization programs.

[mojobo]

www.fairtax.org

It places the economic power where it belongs, in the hands of the consumer. It is not as crazy as one may think. Read it with an open mind, without bias.

This is my favorite tax policy I've seen proposed so far. I would still put in a very modest income tax so we don't disproportionately save/invest instead of consume, but right now it might be better that we under consume until we can actually put a dent in our debt.
When you start to see charts like this (http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/01/04/chart-of-the-day-negative-net-national-savings/) its getting a little ridiculous that the Federal Reserve wants to keep interest rates so low when we need to be saving drastically to be able to pay off some of the national debt were facing now.