Forum Post: Job Creators Fighting Back
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 15, 2011, 8:13 p.m. EST by aries
(463)
from Nutley, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Some politicians claim that politicians create jobs. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says, "My job is to create jobs."
What hubris! Government has no money of its own. All it does is take from some people and give to others. That may create some jobs, but only by leaving less money in the private sector for job creation.
Actually, it's worse than that. Since government commandeers scarce resources by force and doesn't have to peddle its so-called services on the market to consenting buyers, there's no feedback mechanism to indicate if those services are worth more to people than what they were forced to go without. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/14/job_creators_fighting_back_112395.html
you do know the US gov't is the country's largest employer. It is the largest law firm, largest accounting firm, largest group of economists and financial analysts. So, yes, they do create jobs.
Don't forget the hundreds of billions of dollars the US government spends on services, all that money creates jobs in the private sector.
Useless jobs that take money away from useful citizens.
But they are all funded by us,the taxpayers. They produce no marketable products or services. The more govt jobs there are the more taxes have to be paid to pay people to do those jobs.
The problem in America is almost no one produces marketable products. We think we will somehow be able to run an economy with a 50 billion dollar trade deficit just so we can get cheap crap from China. People need the government jobs because the other jobs went away. Getting rid of those last few jobs will just magnify the problem. You really have to have faith in business to do the right thing to give those jobs to the private sector. I have less faith in business than I have in government. I have even less faith in government sponsored business, our banks, big oil, big food, wall street, Fannie and Freddie, private prisons, these are the worst of the worst welfare for billionaire programs out there.
Federal gov't has a total workforce of some 2.1 million -- Wash Post
That's actually a very small number.
yes, but don't they say that one job creates three through consumption (I know the now discredited Nat'l Board of Realtors like to say that).
But private sector job losses while govt jobs increase mean there are fewer taxpayers to pay for the govt jobs. A nasty circle to say the least.
Really a bad deal for all of us. We should all be willing to pay a little more for products made in America and we should be writing tax policies that favor American manufacturing. If we ended up going to war with China we'd have to fight them barefoot and naked and they would have to lend us the money to do it.
They produce no marketable products or services
so you advocate that they "produce marketable products or services" such as FDRs CCC and WPA or are you advocating that the government "produce" cars - in competition with Toyota and GM?
I do agree with you on the CCC & WPA!
i think the post office is the only service of government directly marketable to the populace; otherwise, for example, they provide services through building and managing infrastructure, or regulating utilities and markets, and bringing criminals to justice. if the government didn't do these things the private sector likely would, it's really just whether it's forced on the taxpayers through government taxation or a private party charging you for it.
THAT! is the problem!
The rich are richer than ever before. Far richer. So why is unemployment so high? Oh. I remember now...GREED.
The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009. Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.
Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own over 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.
The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
hey Mr. Modest.
I was looking for info on the dem who had joined Cantor in advocating the destruction of medicaid.
CBS reports they will wait till 2013 to submit the bill. I was hoping to gather information to support the contention that dems like the guy Cantor was working with, and Levin who worked with McCain, work to produce legislation that does two things:
helps break the system in some fundamental way
serves to support the premise that both parties are the same
I can't even find the guys name - I think he was from Oregon, not sure
I havn't even heard about this. No medicaid?
It's a revival of Cantor's proposal from earlier in the summer, with modifications. They want to give granma options, private sector options, CBS indicated the White House position was that insurance companies would dump the most expensive patients on medicaid while keeping the least expensive ones.
If correct, this pushes medicaid further over the edge.
And Cantor is working with a dem from the west coast on the issue - CBS called it an example of rare bi-partisanship
the fucker is a repelican in dem clothing, and needs to go.
we also need an examination of how these kinds of tactics serve to discredit both parties and seems to prove the fallacy that both parties are the same.
With Cantor clearly in the lead on this issue, the case can be made that it is just another example of repelican policy at work -
break the system
paint both parties as the problem
the fuckers are clever
I wonder what benefit this dem is getting for his support.
John Stossel is behind this article. He's a extremist liberterian in the vein of Ron Lawl. It's load of crap, Cry me river, it's about time for job creators pay their fair share of the tax burden and stop plundering the middle class. Really what crap!
Go to this thread to get informed about the truth on these lies you spread:
If-the-rich-are-jobs-creators-where-are-the-jobs
http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-the-rich-are-jobs-creators-where-are-the-jobs/
he we go again - "fair share" -who is defining what that is?
What a load of hearsay, have you ever run a business? I am director of a "job creator" employing 3 staff, above the salary and taxes the company pays another 40% tax on top to the "government". I this European country 23% of the total workforce is in the government. To give a pay rise of 100$ per month the company must pay 10,000 per year, 7600 in tax. This is the reality of big government and welfare state. It is the multinational companies, governments and banking institutions who are committing fraud that are the problem - not small and medium businesses!
you say all this when he are the country with the highest GDP in history.
And second I thought you hate corporations? They make the jobs. Get your priorities strate.
these people are confused OLLAG. They dont know what they want. They are just following some communist like sheep
More accurately they think they can get other people to make jobs by supporting lobbyist that might not agree with us.
This article is copyrighted by Creators Syndicate, Inc. When I go to their website, they clearly 'label' their reports under the headings: Conservative Opinions & Liberal Opinions. That observation should be self-explanatory.
I have to insist.
If you want to stop outsourcing the government has to implement an import tax. That or people need to consciously stop outsourcing and making products in other countries. Given the fact that most people can't even stop shopping at Walmart I don't see this happening.
Walmart Rules!!!
wow - so this really hit a nerve lol!
Job creators fighting back? Is that a threat from 1% to 99%?
Also, If the government don't create jobs, why then do Presidents loose their job when the economy tanks. "It's the economy stupid"
The blood suckers.
Government needs to get beyond the fact that money means something. The bankers have come to this realization a long time ago. Easy money= time. Money does not = gold anymore. The more people in the country the more money their needs to be to occupy that time. If they cannot make the financial elite give up their money, then their needs to be more to go around. When banks need money simple they just print more. Well why can't government print money to supply jobs to hardworking people. I'm talking about jobs the average person can get, jobs that pave the way for the future (Not just 5-10 years, 50-100).
No, not when the money in the private sector has a tendency to leave our shores. The feedback that you crave is the actions you see on this post.
and why do you think money leave our shores?
Because people are too stupid to see treason when it is staring them in the face and picking their pocket as it leaves the shores. But I know you expected me to answer that question in an Ayn Randesq way. What you take me for? a fool!
yea - a fool hahaha! it's pretty obvious. so I have a business & should just sit here & let the govt take whatever they want from me & I keep working away harder & harder to keep my standard of living. soooner or later they will just take it all & give me what they think I neeed & we are in Soviet Russia. Pleasse!!!
You should have been a man about it and sucked her welfare dry. If you really have such a disdain for your gov't, then change it. But no, you are a greedy dimwit who will have your wealth confiscated anyway. You play the game like a moron. Shit, I knew drug dealers with more honor than you.
Eat The Rich
and what do you get ?
everything we ever wanted
The "job " of the govt is NOT to create jobs, it's to protect the country and it inhabitants from countries and peoples that wish to do us harm.
do the bridges in the country need to be maintained?
yes or no
Is the Hoover Dam a good thing?
yes or no
And how about protecting us from peoples who have done us harm
Peoples like repelicans
fraudulent lendors
fraudulent investment bankers
I think the governments job is to protect us from rabid dogs like Zen.
Remember when the Clinton administration was forcing lenders into sub-prime loans? But you are probably right, the government will always "know what's best".
that's bullshit, but a common talking point of repelicans
it's similar to the point banks were attempting to make when they were going to raise fees this fall -they claimed the new Congressional regulation would cost them 8 billion $ so they were going to institute new atm fees -
remember that?
alll the fuckers proved is that:
they are liars
the regulations should have been much tougher
Why?
Because if it weren't for Occupy, you would be paying higher bank fees right now.
piss off
Delusions of grandeur
who? bankers? that well may be -
but don't think for a moment that the activism around Wall Street and all over the rest of the country didn't have an impact on people's thinking, because it did, and as a result a lot of them began
to smaller institutions and to co-ops.
This in turn had a direct impact on decision making at the major institutions, and they dropped the planned fees.
The big banks want you to move your money since they are not lending it out, they are losing money on your deposits.
who told you that?
why did you believe them?
The banks were going to institute new fees for atm cards and backed off when people began moving their money.
Do you really believe what you just typed? Or are you just throwing bullshit around because you like the smell?
Banks pay a fee to the FDIC for the insurance. They move it up and down as they see fit and right now it is high relative to interest rates. Tighter lending regulations mean that only the best clients get loans and they are worried about the economy. Keeping the books on numerous small checking accounts is not a money maker. The big banks will eliminate smaller accounts for this reason.
Can you respond using proper English or is that above you. Go ahead hurl some profanity my way, it makes you look smart.
You are implying that the measure to raise new fees, and justify these new fees by pointing at the new regulations and claiming they would cost 8 billion -
was nothing but a con.
a charade.
with the intent of getting customers to move their money.
I see based on the construct of your argument that you are indeed smarter than your original post would indicate ~
hence
I conclude you just like the aroma
of bullshit
They lose money on those small accounts so they can one of two things, raise the fee or push the money out. Since they can't do the former they are doing the latter.
Couldn't control yourself, let me guess, early 20s, trying to find yourself, not very good with the ladies, didn't play any team sports so you have to hurl a profanity?
seems funny - I've had a zero fee checking account forever
and with atms they have reduced the need for paper and human expense in processing - thereby reducing overhead.
You've either been sold a pack of lies, or are selling them. I don't much care either way.
That's because banks took your money and invested in higher yielding securities such as CDOs, which they can't do now. Do you think that the FDIC insurance is free? Of course in your world, yes.
By the way, here is a hint, pretty girls don't like guys who curse and use profanity. They realize how childish it is and move on.
Really?
Because that hasn't been my experience at all
Girls who shower once a week are not attractive. I am sorry.
I think you're wrongly claiming credit. Customers moved their money because of the fees that were coming. The banks like any other business saw they were losing customers because of it and decided against instituting the fees. It's just good business,simple as that. I've been with my credit union 25 years because of the better service. I recommend credit unions to everybody.
No such thing happened. It is a myth invented by Libartards and Repelicans.
Some good acid you dropped dude.
Just the citric acid in my morning orange juice.
The "government made the banks do it" myth has been debunked time and time again. Repeating the lie doesn't make it ant truer. The truth is a little more complex than the demagogue right wingers would have you believe:
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/bloombergs-awful-comment-what-can-we-say-for-certain-regarding-the-gses/
No doubt you won't read it, more comfortable with the myths than any actual evidence.
ok : )
Is John Murtha Airport a good thing?
Apparently not since he did not survive a routine medical procedure and so took his secrets to the grave . . . .
I predict more such events.
Events like
John Murtha airport sits almost empty as a monument to government corruption and pork.
So, having a little sense to critically evaluate government infrastructure makes sense. It really isn't always just fantastic.
i read an analysis on that airport--for the cost of one person flying out of there (all costs of airport included) domestically--the government could have flown a family of 4 to paris. now contemplate this... repeat that disgusting truism across a hundred thousand other government transactions. waste is rampant.
does it get any use at all?
did it ever?
and if so
by whom?
Bridges are a state responsibility. Hoover damn was busy work during the depression. Democrats are the enemy of the country. They want you dependent on them , that works well with what Reid said about his job is to create jobs.
you are a fucking idiot
I guess you never heard of the interstate, huh
the repelican party is DONE
Thank you ZD, now I don't have to explain how federal highway use taxes came about, you know that 17 cents a gallon on all fuels used on the highways...sigh...
you are more than welcome.
Look around - can you see it?
The detritus of what was . . .
and to think this kind of thinking is what makes the repelican party tick .. . .
scary, ain't it?
Yep...makes me wonder what was taught in the schools they went to.
I think it can only have been how to lie, cheat and steal.
And of course, greed is good
the silly bastards.
Yet they just took a record number of congressional seats from Democrats a year ago.
Honestly, some of the things that get written on this site...
you can thank the tea party
I'm not sure if the red state constituency has had enough of their candidates yet or not.
In any case, whether it translates directly into concrete numbers this coming election or not is irrelevant.
repelicans will not end bushite tax cuts on the rich
global warming is right outside the door, everyone can see it, and they can see they lied
the repelican party is DONE
it's a perfectly natural consequence of their own behavior
they have only themselves to blame
uh - hold on - the last election cycle - the GOP cleaned up. just how are they done?
Global warming? That's the biggest joke ever.
I've been saying that global warming is that rock on which the hard right will be destroyed, but I don't think it is happening on Wednesday.
Energy analysis
http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXX2/powering.pdf
and the possibility of extinction:
http://lifeboat.com/ex/risking.human.extinction
Scenarios involving positive feedback and runaway overheating are easy to construct. For instance:
(i) Ocean waters warm up, becoming less able to absorb carbon dioxide which is a powerful greenhouse gas;
(ii) cold-water nutrients then rise to the warmed sea surface less often, so phytoplankton grow more slowly, absorb less carbon dioxide, and generate less dimethyl sulphide, a substance which encourages the birth of the clouds which keep us cool in daytime;
(iii) many phytoplankton die because of ozone layer losses;
(iv) warmer weather increases production of carbon dioxide by plants and soil microbes;
(v) tundra melts and peat bogs dry out, producing yet more carbon dioxide and vast amounts of another greenhouse gas, methane, which is, molecule for molecule, perhaps thirty times as powerful;
(vi) changes in high altitude clouds make them trap more heat; (vii) drought then kills vegetation, returning carbon dioxide to the atmosphere;
(viii) there next comes depletion, through the ravages of methane and other greenhouse gases, of the hydroxyls which are so important in destroying these gases;
(ix) there follows a retreat of sea ice, so that less sunlight is reflected back into space;
(x) heating of the sea thereupon releases the trillions of tons of methane which are at present locked up in the clathrates of the continental shelves;
(xi) the new heat produces much more water vapor, an extremely important greenhouse gas, so that a greenhouse-effect disaster arrives.
James Lovelock is well known for his "Gaia" hypothesis which, stripped of the mysticism that has sometimes been attached to it, is simply that negative feedback loops have kept Earth healthy. However, he has recently been saying that positive feedbacks could come to be dominant any day now, the planet's temperature then perhaps rocketing upwards in a way producing "gigadeath": killing billions, that is to say, if not everybody.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange
In 1965 executives at Shell wanted to know what the world would look like in the year 2000. They consulted a range of experts, who speculated about fusion-powered hovercrafts and "all sorts of fanciful technological stuff". When the oil company asked the scientist James Lovelock, he predicted that the main problem in 2000 would be the environment. "It will be worsening then to such an extent that it will seriously affect their business," he said.
"And of course," Lovelock says, with a smile 43 years later, "that's almost exactly what's happened."
Lovelock has been dispensing predictions from his one-man laboratory in an old mill in Cornwall since the mid-1960s, the consistent accuracy of which have earned him a reputation as one of Britain's most respected - if maverick - independent scientists. Working alone since the age of 40, he invented a device that detected CFCs, which helped detect the growing hole in the ozone layer, and introduced the Gaia hypothesis, a revolutionary theory that the Earth is a self-regulating super-organism. Initially ridiculed by many scientists as new age nonsense, today that theory forms the basis of almost all climate science.
For decades, his advocacy of nuclear power appalled fellow environmentalists - but recently increasing numbers of them have come around to his way of thinking. His latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, predicts that by 2020 extreme weather will be the norm, causing global devastation; that by 2040 much of Europe will be Saharan; and parts of London will be underwater. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report deploys less dramatic language - but its calculations aren't a million miles away from his.
Man-made warming, links rebutting Fromz:
http://www.noe21.org/dvd2/Global%20Warming%20FAQ%20-%A0%20temperature.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/scientists-and-economists.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/tropical-deforestation-and.html
You can thank whoever you want. It does not change the fact that the Republicans did unbelievably well last year.
Do you honestly think that a family of 5 taking in $250K a year is rich and should be taxed at a higher rate than other middle class families?
there are 7 billion people on the planet, so I'm kinda grossed out by the prospect of a family of five . . . .
but that does not answer your question.
No, I do not think a family of five making $250,000 / year is rich - not by today's standards. Not when ceos get bonuses of ten and twenty times as much - after receiving Congressional Bailout.
Well when you refer to the Bush tax cuts for the rich, those are some of the families they pertain to.
And while the idea of one large family engulfing the entire human race is nice, most people care infinitely more about their own kin than others. That is just evolution and nature and not necessarily a bad thing.
the point is bushite tax cuts have not created a single job - not lately. News reports indicate corporate America is sitting on a trillion dollars, not creating jobs, not paying taxes, and the deficit continues upward.
that's no way to run a country.
Sorry, the job of the govt is NOT to provide jobs. Thats the "job" of private business's . A healthy economy, without overwhelming govt regs and interference produces jobs.
Teachers, sanitation workers, road builders, policemen, firemen, water inspectors, patent office workers, building safety inspectors, and so on, would be surprised about that.
And during depressions and recessions caused by the private business sector, it damned well is government's job to create jobs. No one else is doing it, and people are hurting. Your ideology does not trump simple decency, which is what creating jobs is.
The truest function of any government, whether is chooses to do so or not, is to ensure the well being of its citizens. Without that mandate, government has no legitimate function. If that means creating jobs in desperate times, there is no more appropriate thing for the government to do.
Govt jobs just take more money away from the taxpayers.
That's right, public services actually need to be paid for by the public. Clean water, roads, teachers for one's kids, fire departments, police, the armed services, food safety inspectors, supplying flu shot for the coming year, medical research that benefits everyone, getting the local weather, and about a thousand other things people take for granted, have to be paid for.
What everyone gets in return is an actual civil society.
I think you misunderstand me. You are correct about public services but creating more govt jobs just for the sake of creating them is foolish at best.
Actually it makes perfect sense economically during times of recession. Creating jobs takes people off of unemployment, creating a savings. The tax base from income earnings increases. People employed are productive. With more money in their pockets, they have more to spend, so consumer demand rises. Inventory goes down as a result and production increases in the private sector, which begins hiring. As private sector hiring increases, people working at lower paying government generated jobs move into the higher paying private sector ones. Demand increases more. And so a cycle of recovery is engaged.
So creating government jobs is not just for the sake of creating them, but a way of kick starting the private sector economy.
As government spending increases, the public knows that the revenue to pay for that spending has to come from either increased borrowing or increasing taxes which lowers their expected return in the future which means that they will save more due to the uncertainty. Right now business is concerned about the future and is saving cash. As the government has been in a deadlock the public is realizing that there will be no new programs and they are beginning to spend and invest.
When government spending is on jobs, the economy recovers, and the expanded tax base takes care of the temporary increase of the debt..
Business id not hoarding cash because of uncertainty, but because if lack of consumer demand. They have said as much themselves in survey after survey. The way to increase consumer demand is by creating jobs and spendable income.
The public is hardly spending and investing. The latest report from the Census bureau indicates that nearly half of ALL Americans are now now living below or near the poverty line. Thats 150 million fellow citizens, men women and children.
They are not investing. They are hunkering down.
But the expanded tax base is a fallacy. You are actually spending more of the govts income. Think of it like this,I get hired at a govt job and am paid $50k a year.In turn $10k goes back to the govt in taxes creating a loss of $40k.
Have you ever seen a country spend its way to posterity. If it was true, everybody would do it. You can tax, issue bonds or create money for only so long before confidence in the system is gone.
Economic activity is picking up especially in the last three months. If the government does nothing activity will come back. Unemployment will be down to 8% by the election.
Actually, yes i have. America did it post WWII. So did all of Europe. Sweden is a prime example. Spending is INVESTING. And you can't make money without investing something.
I don't know how you can arrive at such a rosy prediction. No one else is. If Austerity junkies rule, we will find ourselves with 20% unemployment at least. If the Euro goes south, we will be hit hard again. We are in the midst of the single longest high unemployment rate in the entire history of this country. from the Independence war until now. Credit is frozen: we are in a sustained liquidity trap. There is virtually no consumer demand to speed up a return to healthy production or hiring. There are four jobs seekers to every available job. And nearly 50% of the country - the WHOLE country - now lives near or below poverty.
The government MUST do something, and fast.
Actually government spending declined rapidly in 1946 as debt was such a high percent of GDP and there were a lot of men coming back into the work force.
I would not say that 8% unemployment is a rosy forecast. It is getting better and it is being driven by business investment not the consumer. Labor prices in China are quickly rising and are already at parity with Mexico. That coupled with higher oil prices are forcing US business to locate manufacturing local. You see it sleazy in the furniture bus in NC.
Sound monetary policy plays a bigger role in success than fiscal policy and so far Bernanke has injected liquidity at the right times.
Yes Europe is worrisome but Ireland is coming out of it. They kept corp taxes low and cut spending but they just proposed an increase in the personal tax so we will see the effect. Britain appears to be going it alone and had cut spending and there are only incremental signs of growth there v
Reid is employed by the the people, he is a civil servant of the people. His job is NOT to create jobs. The above mentioned also work for and are paid for by the citizens of the USA.
The "job " of the govt is to protect the USA from enemies of the country both foreign and domestic.
[Deleted]
ows people ARE lemmings,...............or in other words, "useful idiots".
[Deleted]
changing the the point of the post doesn't change what ows people are, "useful idiots"
Do you always stutter?
Poverty is a domestic enemy.
FDR knew that, and saved this country. The Government has not only a right, but an obligation, to create jobs in periods of extreme unemployment. It has in the past, it will hopefully do so in the future.
poverty isn't an enemy, it's a monetary catagory. And,....it's not a permanent one.
When it kills and causes illness, malnutrition, displacement, homelessness; when it can be remedied, it is an enemy.
Poverty is generally permanent in this country. 98% of those born into the lowest quintile stay in the lowest quintile, as do their children. An expansion of government created jobs would go some way (not all by a long shot, but better than nothing) to alleviating that.
Yes, have more people dependent on the govt, it's exactly what the dems/libs want. cradle to grave dependency. That way they ( the govt) can keep growing larger and larger and larger until it runs everything in a persons life. Your life is then owed to the govt because without it you couldn't live on your own.
Pure distortion, hyperbole, and unfounded declaration.
What I stated was truth.
reply to post below:
You mean like unemployment insurance?
Or are you talking about health care legislation? I guess you'd rather see 50 million uninsured fellow citizens having to go to emergency rooms for routine or critical care that every taxpayer has to cover.
As I said, Republitards have never met a poor person they didn't like to kick.
Regardless, Welfare was essentially ended by a Democrat, giving lie to your statement about all Democrats enabling dependency. What's more the economy as a whole, up until this one has always done better under democrats than republitards. So even with entitlement programs, everyone, but everyone, has done better during Democratic administrations, including the stock market.
Of course that doesn't matter to right wing ideologues. They see helping the poor as a "waste" but giving subsidies by the billions to oil companies and tax breaks to the wealthy as high moral values.
Medicaid? Wasted on the poor. Let them die, those miserable bastards. Being born poor was their choice. Haliburton? Hey, nice war-profiteering, Buddy. Let's have lunch.
[Removed]
Reply to post below:
The Repelicans/Libertards have never seen a poor person the didn't like to kick. Nor have they met a middle class person they didn't try to make poorer. Or a public safety regulation they didn't like to gut. Or an anti-trust regulation they didn't try to repeal. Or a bank they didn't like to reward, or a billionaire they didn't want to protect. Or a value they didn't try to distort, or an unfounded evidence-free myth they didn't like to declaim .
And who ended "Welfare as we know it"? Oh yes, it was a Democrat.
Ended "welfare as we know it"? Is that why under 0bama ( democrat) there is more money being spent ( wasted ) on entitlement programs?
Really, Have you taken a poll if Dems/libs that showed they want everyone dependent on government? What orifice did you pull that "fact" from?
And that statement conveniently ignores the fact that the greatest dependance in the history of the USA on government largesse have been the banks, Wall Street, and the oil companies, to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars.
The dem/s libs are the party of dependency. They have never seen a spending program they didn't like.
In a way it is the governments job...
In the early 50's the Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered a study.
This study covered the scenario of cessation of all transportation of goods. The results of the 1950's study have proven to be valid yet today.
There is no more than a 3 day supply of food in any population center. Before the end of the third day no food would be available, medications etc would also be no longer available.
If the delivery of services, water and sewage for example, within 7 days 'wars' would break out. Sanitary conditions would be such that diseases would be well on the way to reaching epidemic proportions.
Many of the 'overwhelming regulations' so many complain about are regulations that keep the supply lines open.
So the stability of government is what creates the proper atmosphere for jobs to be created, thus government is also in the business of creating jobs by proxy.
That's the first time I've heard The People referred to as "inhabitants" of the Country...kinda reminds me of Corporate Culture that refers to employees as "human material." Nice.
It's funny that you posted this and I happened to come across it right now. I am watching the Commerce Secretary on TV right now. He just stated the following "I'm pleading with our private buisness owners in the private sector, start investing right here at home. Start hiring people in America."
Ok, how about this: Stop regulating buisnesses so much that they can't afford to create jobs in this country. When you start doing that Mr. Secretary, you wont have to plead with anyone!
I agree with you 100% they've got a lot of nerve!
Well I guess a statement like that should not come as a surprise from one of these wind bags. Don't take any responsibility for the problem, just give the appearance that you care about the American people and hope the uneducated and uninformed buy it.
explain how your ideas are superior & how our ideas have failed please. and in comparison to what please .
Not your statement, the Commerce Secretaries...lol
ok - so you are a refuse to answer . no problem. as suspected. loserville
I'm not sure what you are asking me based on my post? I stated that the Commerce Secretary made a dumb comment that directly relates to the topic that you posted so I'm not sure what you want me to explain in regards to a superior idea over a failed idea? No one talked about an Idea successful or failed. Clear it up for me.
what idea has failed? and compared to what?
And again I ask you what failed idea are you inferring I spoke about?
'm not sure what you want me to explain in regards to a superior idea over a failed idea? - I dont know maybe our lines are crossed
I think I might have figured out where your trying to go. Let me explain and then tell me if I got it. businesses are here for one reason, to make a profit. If a company is flourishing, it expands and as a result hires more people. When the government over regulates business to the point where it is no longer able to sustain operations it does one of two things. A. it downsizes by cutting jobs or it B. moves somewhere that makes it worth expanding again to continue to make a profit. Our government has done everything in its power the last couple of decades to force companies to move from our lands to others. Until they stop that practice and give them a reason to stay and hire here in America they will continue to move out and leave us high and dry. And I don't believe that most companies want to do that. I believe that most of them want to stay here where allot of them were created but financially they just can't.
yes - excellent!