Creating jobs is not the responsibility of Congress or the President

[CFoTsD]

When did Americans get the fool idea that it was?

It's been a slow gradual process called Central Planning

 

[swerve]

That is a GREAT post -- and you touched on two things the government SHOULD be doing RIGHT NOW...

You failed to mention the DECADES of DEREGULATION beginning with the concept of LBO's (under Reagan) that led us to where we are today...

 

[jackoroe]

I was reading an article today. Many in business are saying this plan is doomed to fail. It's demand for products and services that will make them hire. Not tax breaks and incentives.

The central planning idiots, never having met a payroll, have no idea how business actually works.

 

[swerve]

^In theory -- by hiring people to build roads, schools, bridges, etc -- will put money into peoples pockets to BUY OTHER stuff...

However -- I'm so cynical lately -- and believe that by the time congress butchers the bill -- it'll be another EXPENSIVE BOONDOGGLE...

 

[jackoroe]

^In theory -- by hiring people to build roads, schools, bridges, etc -- will put money into peoples pockets to BUY OTHER stuff...

However -- I'm so cynical lately -- and believe that by the time congress butchers the bill -- it'll be another EXPENSIVE BOONDOGGLE...

That's the theory, but we spent about twice this amount last go round with little effect.

 

[swerve]

^I'm with you Jack -- I don't necessarily TRUST congress with our collective purse anymore...

We need to REPLACE the SYSTEM -- AND the INDIVIDUALS...

USA Today releases a "review of legislative and campaign records" that shows freshmen lawmakers "are pushing legislation that could benefit some of their most generous campaign contributors."

^These are the TEA PARTY guys -- it took LESS than a YEAR for them to become "business as usual" participants in Washington...

 

[Jack Springer]

Isn't it $5000 for hiring someone who's unemployed.

Unless there is demand for product that can be created or produced that $5000 will not go far for any company, large or small.

The majority of the proposed $500,000,000 goes to temporarily cutting the employee payroll tax in hopes of creating demand for goods and services.

Isn't that just more welfare? I'm assuming that money will just go to pay for normal cost of living expenses since many employees have not had "normal" increases in the past several years.

Gas is more expensive. Food is more expensive.

 

[MystikWizard]

I just wanted to say "great topic" and I appreciate someone else drawing attention to something I've said for a long time now ... although more of my criticism has been directed at those who want to blame the Executive Branch for not snapping their fingers and signing laws out of thin air.

You want to blame someone ... blame either:

1) Congress for not bringing anything to the President's desk to sign

2) Corporate America for attempting to hold the country hostage and for demanding incentives just to employ people

Why people ever thought the President of the country, given his responsibilities as outlined in the Constitution, is responsible for taking the initiative on Legislative matters, is really beyond me when this is clearly the responsibility of the LEGISLATIVE Branch ... if someone wants to point fingers at a Government Branch at all.

 

[cityboy-stl]

It is an endless circle. There are few jobs because there is low demand because there are few jobs because there is low demand. Meanwhile the rich get ever richer. Demand creates jobs and jobs create demand. To create demand, you need to do something to get people employed. The presidents plan is a start but doesn't go far enough.

How many more Americans would be employed right now if their job hadn't been outsourced overseas? How many out-of-business American small businesses would still be in operation right now if their customers jobs hadn't been outsourced overseas? There should be a big stiff tax penalty for outsourcing but instead they get rewarded. We should tax the hell out of these corporations and then provide deductions if they reinvest in this country. Open a plant and hire in the U.S. and earn a reduction in your corporate tax rate proportionally. Lay off workers and send jobs to China and India, you pay an 85% off-the-top outsourcing tax. I'll bet they let go of some of their trillions and a lot more people have jobs.

 

[mapiyu]

It is an endless circle. There are few jobs because there is low demand because there are few jobs because there is low demand. Meanwhile the rich get ever richer. Demand creates jobs and jobs create demand. To create demand, you need to do something to get people employed. The presidents plan is a start but doesn't go far enough.

How many more Americans would be employed right now if their job hadn't been outsourced overseas? How many out-of-business American small businesses would still be in operation right now if their customers jobs hadn't been outsourced overseas? There should be a big stiff tax penalty for outsourcing but instead they get rewarded. We should tax the hell out of these corporations and then provide deductions if they reinvest in this country. Open a plant and hire in the U.S. and earn a reduction in your corporate tax rate proportionally. Lay off workers and send jobs to China and India, you pay an 85% off-the-top outsourcing tax. I'll bet they let go of some of their trillions and a lot more people have jobs.

The fact that nothing like this has even been on the table just shows that nobody in Washington is really serious about tackling the unemployment issue.

 

[JayHawk]

It is an endless circle. There are few jobs because there is low demand because there are few jobs because there is low demand. Meanwhile the rich get ever richer. Demand creates jobs and jobs create demand. To create demand, you need to do something to get people employed. The presidents plan is a start but doesn't go far enough.

How many more Americans would be employed right now if their job hadn't been outsourced overseas? How many out-of-business American small businesses would still be in operation right now if their customers jobs hadn't been outsourced overseas? There should be a big stiff tax penalty for outsourcing but instead they get rewarded. We should tax the hell out of these corporations and then provide deductions if they reinvest in this country. Open a plant and hire in the U.S. and earn a reduction in your corporate tax rate proportionally. Lay off workers and send jobs to China and India, you pay an 85% off-the-top outsourcing tax. I'll bet they let go of some of their trillions and a lot more people have jobs.

Actually I bet they would move completely offshore and then focus on other economies. Why stay? If the environment sucks and the policy is to force paying a worker wage that is unsustainable and makes your product so expensive you lose your entire overseas market then WHY stay here?

 

[cityboy-stl]

Actually I bet they would move completely offshore and then focus on other economies. Why stay? If the environment sucks and the policy is to force paying a worker wage that is unsustainable and makes your product so expensive you lose your entire overseas market then WHY stay here?

Well I don't know. There was a story recently about Ford opening an auto plant in India. My feeling is if the cars built in that Indian plant are sold to the Indian market, that is a perfectly legitimate business operation and I would not apply any kind of outsourcing penalty to that. But if the cars are shipped back to U.S. and not available in the local Indian market that is what needs to stop. Whirlpool recently closed a plant in Indiana and moved it to Mexico to make American sold refrigerators. That's what I'm getting at. Meanwhile the executives at these big corps are making 300 to 350 times what their average worker is paid. Maybe they could pay better worker wages if they weren't so greedy and sucked it all for themselves. No doubt the people running the company should be the highest paid. But the amount they're getting is entirely unreasonable and nothing more than rapacious greed.

 

[JayHawk]

Oh I agree it is alarmingly unjust. However that horse has left the barn. The economy of the world will never be local on the grand scale. Never ever again. It was signed out of existence in treaties. By both the left and by the right. WHY? because the world is changing and if your business doesn't experience a paradigm shift over the course of a changing world then it becomes obsolete. Globalization is not going away. SO either we demand low skill jobs return to America AND allow the standard of living to slip down to mexico and Indian standards OR we change our education system to create a higher skilled workforce.

I know there are many who don't educate themselves enough to have a decent skilled job so therefore they will be regulated to service jobs. There really is no other course. It would be against every concept of freedom in this country and violate innumerable treaties to levy such a draconian tax on Corporations that manufacturer outside the US.

Finally the money behind just Walmart alone would prevent our politicians from making such a decision. So not only will it not work it wont happen. So that can not be the solution.

 

[swerve]

This may sound a little arrogant to those outside of the U.S.

But I believe that the U.S. is the BEST country to live in IN THE WORLD...

And if a company essentially has its headquarters here -- in which the executive ENJOY all the benefits of LIVING HERE -- but has the physical patent and a mailbox in Switzerland -- they SHOULD be TAXED here and NOT in Switzerland...

There are SO MANY loopholes that are GUARDED HEAVILY by lobbyists to shift the burden of taxation onto those who no longer have the representation in Washington...

And with a presidential candidate claiming that "corporations are people too" -- and a supreme court allowing said corporations to supply even MORE influence with lawmakers -- radical changes need to be made to the current system...

 

[palemale]

The majority of the proposed $500,000,000 goes to temporarily cutting the employee payroll tax in hopes of creating demand for goods and services.
)
Isn't that just more welfare? I'm assuming that money will just go to pay for normal cost of living expenses since many employees have not had "normal" increases in the past several years.

I get it now. Tax cuts for wage earners is welfare. But tax breaks for oil companies and those who make above $250,000 (you know, "job creators") is necessary for economic growth. Spoken like a true Republican.

 

[palemale]

But I believe that the U.S. is the BEST country to live in IN THE WORLD...

Have you ever been out of the country?

 

[Centexfarmer]

Have you ever been out of the country?

I have, and I also studied the political, social, and economic histories of Mexico, Columbia, The Dominican Republic, and Haiti.

Then I compared those to the same histories of Argentina, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, compared those against the United States...and yeah some of those countries have something to offer that the U.S. does not, but the long and the short of it "America" is home, "Texas" is home.

No one is going to convince me that my "home" is better than your "home," and it's pointless in trying.

If you tell me that where you live is the greatest place on Earth, who am I to argue with that?

 

[swerve]

Have you ever been out of the country?

Of course not -- why would I WANT to?






P.S. Yes -- many times -- but not everywhere (our OLD country is Ukraine)...

 

[JayHawk]

Have you ever been out of the country?

I know you addressed swerve but I gotta answer too...

I have been to way too many countries and there are amazing things in each. There are appalling things in some.

Maybe it is familiarity but I can not ever help the thought of "Thank God" I am home when I get here. For all it's warts it is home.

I think this country faces some unique challenges that other countries can choose to ignore.

 

[T-Rexx]

It is an endless circle. There are few jobs because there is low demand because there are few jobs because there is low demand. Meanwhile the rich get ever richer. Demand creates jobs and jobs create demand. To create demand, you need to do something to get people employed.

Another way of stating this is that there is not enough money in the middle class.

The middle class is the engine of the American economy. 70% of the US economy consists of consumer spending. What consumers? The middle class, of course. Cars, appliances, computers, food, travel, energy - those are all American products overwhelmingly consumed by the middle class, not rich people.

"Reaganomics" - redistributing wealth from the middle class to the wealthy - has been a spectacular failure. It has created a tiny but fabulously wealthy upper class where most of the nation's wealth is now sequestered. It has taken from the middle class it's ability to drive the American economy through spending. The USA now has by far the biggest gap between rich and poor of any nation in the developed world. Reaganomics has created a condition of permanent depression/recession (including permanent high unemployment) in the USA.

If we want to fix this problem, we need to find ways to restore the middle class. We simply cannot keep using the middle class as the doormat of the wealthy. The rich in America are going to have to start contributing proportionately to the cost of running America.

We need an anti-Reaganomics.