This is one point I actually side with the GOP on. This "jobs bill" was DoA as it really won't do anything. Employment is driven by sales. When people stop buying, companies stop hiring. Of course now, if you give people money to actually spend, they would horde it. It makes about as much since as the government paying utility companies to keep prices the same because supply is high and demand is low.
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoPLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
Creating jobs is not the responsibility of Congress or the President
- Thread starter CFoTsD
- Start date
chrisrobin
JUB 10k Club
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Posts
- 11,539
- Reaction score
- 844
- Points
- 0
WARNING: Theoretical Analogy
If I'm walking along the shore and I see a drowning person, it is not my responsibility (nor am I legally bound) to rescue him/her. However, I believe it is the right thing to do.
One of the unwritten tasks of the Chief Executive is to set the agenda - nothing to do with Constitutional law. When JFK was president, 50 mile hikes were very much in vogue - emphasis on youth. He was the first president born in the 20th century. Hikes were not mandatory. Bible wankers did not label them as socialism.
Sorry if this post is too abstract.
If I'm walking along the shore and I see a drowning person, it is not my responsibility (nor am I legally bound) to rescue him/her. However, I believe it is the right thing to do.
One of the unwritten tasks of the Chief Executive is to set the agenda - nothing to do with Constitutional law. When JFK was president, 50 mile hikes were very much in vogue - emphasis on youth. He was the first president born in the 20th century. Hikes were not mandatory. Bible wankers did not label them as socialism.
Sorry if this post is too abstract.
swerve
Slippery When Wet
- Joined
- May 16, 2004
- Posts
- 12,843
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- tedg99.wordpress.com
^I don't follow your post at all...
But -- I NEVER KNEW that JFK was the 1st president born in the 20th century...
COOL TRIVIA!!!
But -- I NEVER KNEW that JFK was the 1st president born in the 20th century...
COOL TRIVIA!!!
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 123,002
- Reaction score
- 4,586
- Points
- 113
My response to corporations sitting on $2 trillion is "So what?"
Yes, they could hire people -- but to do what? If it's manufacturing, all that will do is make it so corporations have $2 trillion in inventory sitting around instead of in dollars. Any sensible CEO knows that dollars are more useful because they're more flexible.
The only places where employment right now will do any good, in manufacturing terms, is basic supermarket products, because those are what the people who have been without jobs are going to start buying. But guess what? Those, generally, aren't made in the U.S.! So it's not possible to hire people to make things that are going to start selling immediately.
For a policy that works, the solution is heavy taxes on the rich -- and after a year of impressive revenue, deductions for providing jobs in the U.S., preferably jobs making those things from the paragraph above.
Whether or not it's the government's responsibility, the fact of the matter is that until they do something, something massive, the economy is going to putter and sputter along like a crippled motorbike -- sometimes carrying us, more often needing to be pushed.
Yes, they could hire people -- but to do what? If it's manufacturing, all that will do is make it so corporations have $2 trillion in inventory sitting around instead of in dollars. Any sensible CEO knows that dollars are more useful because they're more flexible.
The only places where employment right now will do any good, in manufacturing terms, is basic supermarket products, because those are what the people who have been without jobs are going to start buying. But guess what? Those, generally, aren't made in the U.S.! So it's not possible to hire people to make things that are going to start selling immediately.
For a policy that works, the solution is heavy taxes on the rich -- and after a year of impressive revenue, deductions for providing jobs in the U.S., preferably jobs making those things from the paragraph above.
Whether or not it's the government's responsibility, the fact of the matter is that until they do something, something massive, the economy is going to putter and sputter along like a crippled motorbike -- sometimes carrying us, more often needing to be pushed.
swerve
Slippery When Wet
- Joined
- May 16, 2004
- Posts
- 12,843
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- tedg99.wordpress.com
^Some of the money could be spent to STOCK UP on INVENTORY at manufacturing facilities...
JUST IN CASE...
Inventories are CURRENTLY at SCARY LOW LEVELS!!!
JUST IN CASE...
Inventories are CURRENTLY at SCARY LOW LEVELS!!!
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2003
- Posts
- 8,102
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
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"
They are both welfare.
^Some of the money could be spent to STOCK UP on INVENTORY at manufacturing facilities...
JUST IN CASE...
Inventories are CURRENTLY at SCARY LOW LEVELS!!!
It's called lean manufacturing. Companies produce only what they think will sell and won't produce until there is demand for more units. Kuli basically said what you are implying more eloquently.
Of course the GOP will reject the job bills for the wrong reasons despite it being the right thing to do.
swerve
Slippery When Wet
- Joined
- May 16, 2004
- Posts
- 12,843
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- tedg99.wordpress.com
I don't particularly find it interesting that one who lives off of the State's dole can make a more eloquent argument than my partner and I who actually own a business (which employs REAL people) in the transportation, warehousing and logistics sector...
JayHawk
Rambunctiously Pugnacious
WARNING: Theoretical Analogy
If I'm walking along the shore and I see a drowning person, it is not my responsibility (nor am I legally bound) to rescue him/her. However, I believe it is the right thing to do.
One of the unwritten tasks of the Chief Executive is to set the agenda - nothing to do with Constitutional law. When JFK was president, 50 mile hikes were very much in vogue - emphasis on youth. He was the first president born in the 20th century. Hikes were not mandatory. Bible wankers did not label them as socialism.
Sorry if this post is too abstract.
I get your point entirely. We are drawing stark lines in the sand in regards to the POTUS job because it isnt outlined as a step-by-step from the constitution.
The Job of leadership has no fucking manual and if your charged with the security of a people that can just as easily mean economic security. Something the last President failed to protect.
Ergo JOBS are the responsibility of the POTUS vis-a-vis the constitution.
did you ask how a Capitalist system works ?
Ahhh , you run the economy into the ground , get the government to bail out the banks and wall street with the idea that it will jump start the economy , but you let the banks repossess peoples houses and when the president wants to overhaul your health care system you scream that its Communism .
Next you blame the current admin for the state of the economy as if all the problems were caused yesterday and they should have been able to fix them before lunch.
Misuse of an idea attributed to KEYNES that was supposed to help control the economy by varying interest rates but instead its effect is to penalise home owners who borrowed money under previous conditions .
Ahhh , you run the economy into the ground , get the government to bail out the banks and wall street with the idea that it will jump start the economy , but you let the banks repossess peoples houses and when the president wants to overhaul your health care system you scream that its Communism .
Next you blame the current admin for the state of the economy as if all the problems were caused yesterday and they should have been able to fix them before lunch.
Misuse of an idea attributed to KEYNES that was supposed to help control the economy by varying interest rates but instead its effect is to penalise home owners who borrowed money under previous conditions .
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Posts
- 123,002
- Reaction score
- 4,586
- Points
- 113
Economic prosperity has always been essential to security; a study of ancient Rome shows that. These days, it's even more true, because government revenues are more directly tied to the health of the economy.
In the past, a famine could plunge revenues, leading to unpaid legions abandoning their posts. Today, a mortgage crisis can dump millions into unemployment -- but we handle it differently, by borrowing to cover the shortfall... which wouldn't be bad, really, if we hadn't been borrowing to cover toys and games.