# Where are the job bills?



## Wry Catcher (Mar 17, 2011)

"Washington  House GOP leaders are rushing a vote to ban all federal funding for NPR in an effort to reforge party unity a day after it splintered badly. 

Fifty-four conservatives defected Tuesday to vote against a spending bill that would forestall a government shutdown for three weeks that they felt didn't go far enough to cut spending. But there is little chance of House Republican leaders losing votes in its bid to kill funding for NPR  the third such vote in weeks. The issue has been a rallying point among conservatives for decades.

Earlier this month, conservative activists released a video purporting to show NPR fundraiser Ron Schiller calling tea partyers "seriously racist" and saying that despite potential damage to smaller stations, "Frankly, it is very clear that we would be better off in the long run without federal funding." In the subsequent outcry, Mr. Schiller left NPR and the organization's president, Vivian Schiller (no relation) resigned. (*The full video, subsequently released, shows that Mr. Schiller's comments were selectively edited*.)"

Ful article:  Why House Republicans are rushing to slash NPR funding - Yahoo! News

And now the neo-cons want to attack another oil rich country (Libya).

The GOP overreaching?  You betcha.  2012 will remake the political landscape once again.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 17, 2011)

Cutting Federal spending *is* a jobs bill.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 17, 2011)

Sorry....Gotta fill out my brackets.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 17, 2011)

Does taking a caddy count as a "job created or saved"?


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 17, 2011)

the "brackets" issue is a Hannity/Faux N00z inspired, tempest in a teapot. ZZZzzz aside from being off-topic.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 17, 2011)

It's totally on topic, as demonstrative of how utterly disconnected the Boyking is from reality and his job.

BTW, you in the posse going with him to Rio?


----------



## whitehall (Mar 17, 2011)

The government cannot create jobs, it can only support an environment that promotes job creation. Lower taxes, cheap energy and less regulations for small business is the way to job growth and democrats are fighting it every step of the way. What was the first issue the democrat party tackled when it gained the majority half way into Bush's 2nd term? Fannie Mae? The economy? Nope. Democrats went after steroid use in Baseball while Fannie was in free fall. Please lefties, no lectures on fictional "jobs bills" while democrats are still in the majority in the senate and we have a socialist in the white house who runs away in hides or plays golf while the world is in crisis.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 17, 2011)

The two parties, over the last 3-4 decades, rigged the system so that the only *cough* industries we have left are "service" and "financial". Thanks a lot for nothing. They sold the American people down the river. The Repubs don't seem to mind however. Everything can be remedied by deregulation LOL.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 17, 2011)

The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.

Proof?  Sure!  The United States Navy; employs officers and enisted personnel; uses products and services from the private sector to feed and cloth its employees; said employees spent their earnings on products and services sold by the private sector in shops which surround all naval facitites.

Countless examples to disprove the canard the government can't create jobs.  Stupid people believe it, liars continue to post it.

More proof?  Why bother.  Non liars and thinking people get it.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 17, 2011)

Thats one, of the many, reasons that Sharron Angle lost in Nevada LOL


----------



## Oddball (Mar 17, 2011)

Right....So let's reinstate the draft until we have full employment!


----------



## whitehall (Mar 17, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> 
> Proof?  Sure!  The United States Navy; employs officers and enisted personnel; uses products and services from the private sector to feed and cloth its employees; said employees spent their earnings on products and services sold by the private sector in shops which surround all naval facitites.
> 
> ...



The Navy? It's not just a job it's an adventure. Do you lefties even know what economic growth is? It doesn't mean confiscating money from one segment of society and distributing it to another. That's zero growth. Only stupid people think that taxpayer funded salaries are an example of job growth. Only the private sector can create wealth.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Mar 17, 2011)

> *Where are the job bills?*


You mean the "spend more borrowed money, make government bigger, more powerful and more intrusive" bills?

Elections have consequences.


----------



## Samson (Mar 17, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Right....So let's reinstate the draft until we have full employment!





*HELL YEAH!!!!!!*


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 17, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> 
> Proof?  Sure!  The United States Navy; employs officers and enisted personnel; uses products and services from the private sector to feed and cloth its employees; said employees spent their earnings on products and services sold by the private sector in shops which surround all naval facitites.
> 
> ...



Govt can definitely create some jobs...public sector jobs. Since these jobs, including the military you mentioned are all paid for by taxpayer dollars, the jobs that are really needed, govt can not create. As private sector jobs continue to be lost, where will the funding come from for all these "govt created" jobs? Public sector jobs do nothing to actualy grow GDP.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
In February, private sector construction, manufacturing, and business services all lost more than 100,000, and the service-providing sector lost more than 375,000 jobs. But government on the other hand added 9,000 last month, and the education and health service fields added 26,000 positions. In January, the government sector added 31,000 jobs, while education and health services added 43,000. Overall in 2008, the private sector lost 3.65 million jobs, while the government grew by nearly 150,000 in the same period.

This simply can not be sustained.


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 18, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> ...



The government can create private sector jobs.  They do this by providing funding for roads and many other public projects that are built by private firms.  Our infrastructure is falling apart.  Any money used for the rebuilding of our infrastructure will lead to job growth in the private sector.  With that job growth, other jobs would be created.  

As for more government jobs, they do help put more money into the private sector as those public employees then spend their money in the private sector.  However, that is a very inefficient way to create jobs, and in the end costs more than is received in return.  But if the money was put towards infrastructure, that would help grow jobs in the private sector, and we would actually realize something in return for the money spent.

Government spending isn't always bad, but it is not good if we don't actually receive something in return.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> "Washington  House GOP leaders are rushing a vote to ban all federal funding for NPR in an effort to reforge party unity a day after it splintered badly.
> 
> Fifty-four conservatives defected Tuesday to vote against a spending bill that would forestall a government shutdown for three weeks that they felt didn't go far enough to cut spending. But there is little chance of House Republican leaders losing votes in its bid to kill funding for NPR  the third such vote in weeks. The issue has been a rallying point among conservatives for decades.
> 
> ...



God, if I go into the local Farmer's Co-Op and start recording white Republican friends of mine making racist statements do you think I can get their welfare funding canceled?


----------



## The T (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> The government can and does create jobs. Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> 
> Proof? Sure! The United States Navy; employs officers and enisted personnel; uses products and services from the private sector to feed and cloth its employees; said employees spent their earnings on products and services sold by the private sector in shops which surround all naval facitites.
> 
> ...


 
Those military is Constitutionally mandated. Weak argument. *NEXT*


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 18, 2011)

I guess the Democrats have been given their new lines to parrot.

Where is a jobs bill.

Funny we never heard a peep out of them about that in the last two years.

And lets see, we had a 800million STIMULIS (so called Jobs helper) and we STILL have near 10% Unemployment.

So the Question US people should be SHOUTING, WHERE THE HELL DID ALL THAT MOENY GO?


----------



## editec (Mar 18, 2011)

It DOES crack me up that so many of the people who like to tell us that

"The government does not create jobs"

have themselves never worked for any private business in their adult lifetimes.

They are in the military, or they are retired. They work for the DoD as civilians, or they work for HSA, or they work for a corporation that does most of its business selling stuff to the GOVERNMENT.

But THEY insist that THEY understand CAPITALISM< so well.

Except they've never lived in a capitalist society, as they have never had a capitalist JOB.

This board is rife with those kind of pro-capitalist _SERVANTS _of the GOVERMENT.

Everybody_ BUT THEM_ needs to bite the bullet for _CAPITALISM_ while they, like their fathers before them, and their children when they're old enough, will suck off the government teat their entire lives.


----------



## MJMavro13 (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> 
> Proof?  Sure!  The United States Navy; employs officers and enisted personnel; uses products and services from the private sector to feed and cloth its employees; said employees spent their earnings on products and services sold by the private sector in shops which surround all naval facitites.
> 
> ...





When you compare military employment to other government employment (job creations) you are comparing apple to oranges and it doesn't work. The military is one of the few primary purposes of government. The majority of the other programs of so called job creation are not. So please, before you speak about lying or BS propaganda, clean up your own points of debate!


----------



## Mad Scientist (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> 
> Proof?  Sure!  The United States Navy; employs officers and enisted personnel; uses products and services from the private sector to feed and cloth its employees; said employees spent their earnings on products and services sold by the private sector in shops which surround all naval facitites.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the typical Liberal condescension. You're smarter than everyone. We got it.


----------



## Vanquish (Mar 18, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> I guess the Democrats have been given their new lines to parrot.



I hope they learn to parrot much better than they have in the past. I've gotta  for the Republicans on that one. They know how to take a simple meme and pound it until they get traction with it.

*Where are the jobs?* *Where are the jobs?* *Where are the jobs? **Where are the jobs?* *Where are the jobs?* *Where are the jobs? **Where are the jobs?* *Where are the jobs?* *Where are the jobs? **Where are the jobs?* *Where are the jobs?* *Where are the jobs? **Where are the jobs?* *Where are the jobs?* *Where are the jobs? *


----------



## Oddball (Mar 18, 2011)

editec said:


> It DOES crack me up that so many of the people who like to tell us that
> 
> "The government does not create jobs"
> 
> ...


Dude....That was a post more worthy of mascale.

You wanna try that again?


----------



## Trajan (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> "Washington &#8211; House GOP leaders are rushing a vote to ban all federal funding for NPR in an effort to reforge party unity a day after it splintered badly.
> 
> Fifty-four conservatives defected Tuesday to vote against a spending bill that would forestall a government shutdown for three weeks that they felt didn't go far enough to cut spending. But there is little chance of House Republican leaders losing votes in its bid to kill funding for NPR &#8211; the third such vote in weeks. The issue has been a rallying point among conservatives for decades.
> 
> ...



like the economic debate, his vacation is ...


----------



## Trajan (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> "Washington  House GOP leaders are rushing a vote to ban all federal funding for NPR in an effort to reforge party unity a day after it splintered badly.
> 
> Fifty-four conservatives defected Tuesday to vote against a spending bill that would forestall a government shutdown for three weeks that they felt didn't go far enough to cut spending. But there is little chance of House Republican leaders losing votes in its bid to kill funding for NPR  the third such vote in weeks. The issue has been a rallying point among conservatives for decades.
> 
> ...



*President Obama pivots to jobs as key theme *

By MIKE ALLEN |* 1/8/10 *6:42 AM EDT 

President Obama pivots to jobs as key theme - Mike Allen - POLITICO.com


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 18, 2011)

editec said:


> It DOES crack me up that so many of the people who like to tell us that
> 
> "The government does not create jobs"
> 
> ...



So many? Like who specifically? Strawman if ever there was one, ed.

What cracks me up about 'all these people' is that they think a job is just supposed to land in their lap. That there is no responsibility on their part for finding one. Contrary to popular opinion there is no shortage of jobs in this country. Not from where I'm sitting anyway. I get sent dozens of job openings on a DAily basis. The shortage is in people with the skills to do those jobs. But apparently it isn't the responsibility of the individual who wants a job to obtain the skills necessary for the jobs avialable. No, no the government is somehow supposed to magically create demand for a product or service that fits the skill set of the person who wants a job. 

Liberals wouldn't know a bill meant to create jobs if it bit them in the ass. A bill to create jobs, would lower taxes on business, get rid of unnecessary regulation on business, make it easier for people to start a business. The public sector can't create jobs, not ones that will sustain and grow an economy anyway. They can only make it as easy as possible for the private sector to do so.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 18, 2011)

Public sector creates and maintains what the private sector finds undesireable to do. Want to mail a letter to Anchorage for fifty cents? For example, when some utilities become sorta profitable the private sector buys them up. Then asks for government handouts to build power plants.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 18, 2011)

*Where are the job bills?*

I think they are with the WMDs.

You didn't think they were seriously committed to helping get Americans back to work, did you?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 18, 2011)

You know it's really a sad commentary on our society when people think that by passing a bill they label a "jobs bill" that jobs will magically appear. It's like thinking that passing a law changing the law of gravity will actually have an effect.


----------



## Flagwavrusa (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> 
> Proof?  Sure!  The United States Navy; employs officers and enisted personnel; uses products and services from the private sector to feed and cloth its employees; said employees spent their earnings on products and services sold by the private sector in shops which surround all naval facitites.
> 
> ...



A street beggar receives a 'gift' from a productive citizen and spends it to feed or clothe himself. This represents the economic function of many civil service jobs. Too many bureaucrats, including from the Department of Homeland Security,  receive inflated salaries and exorbitant benefits packages to do no productive work. Many times they have been caught spending their working hours online watching porn or posting to message to boards. 

Hundreds of thousands of these people could be culled from the federal payrolls to reduce taxes and pay off debt. This would allow citizens from the private sector to spend their savings on things to improve their lives, and former bureaucrats could then be employed serving a useful purpose providing the goods and services that people actually want.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 18, 2011)

MJMavro13 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> ...



Will do.  Let's take President Eisenhower's support for the Federal Highway Act of 1956, shall we.  How many jobs were created in building our nations highway system, how much wealth was created by buidling and maintaining  these roadways as well as Lincoln's support for the transcontinental RR.  Neither project was a primary purpose of government? (whatever the hell that means).

If one speaks of the 'primary' purpose of government they might do well to define the term.   I look forward to reading what the "primary purpose of government" is as well as what is and what is not such a purpose.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 18, 2011)

Flagwavrusa said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> ...



A prime example of someone who has few facts at their disposal failing to understand a problem and offering a simple solution.  A solution that is nothing more than a parroted response of the ubiquitous propaganda from the conservative fringe of the GOP.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 18, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> ...



Not everyone.  I do read and consider your posts in the hopes you may someday post something of substance.  Using "Liberal" is incorrect for their is no "Liberal" party in America; and "liberal" itself has become a pejorative and as such no longer holds and meaning of signifigance.
As for my being condescending that maybe true; pointing out stupidity and mendacity may be taken that way (appropriately) by the stupid and dishonest.  And in fact why should I care for they deserve, respectively, our pity or our wrath.


----------



## Samson (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> A prime example of someone who has few facts at their disposal failing to understand a problem and offering a simple solution.  A solution that is nothing more than a parroted response of the ubiquitous propaganda from the conservative fringe of the GOP.



Speaking of Parrots......

Kinda like starting a thread titled: _Where are the Job Bills?_ a couple of years after the $700 B Recovery Act and Unemployment holding at 9%.

What a trite, moronic charactature you are.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 18, 2011)

Samson said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > A prime example of someone who has few facts at their disposal failing to understand a problem and offering a simple solution.  A solution that is nothing more than a parroted response of the ubiquitous propaganda from the conservative fringe of the GOP.
> ...



Thanks for sharing, I read you posts too.  Not that you have ever posted anything of substance.  You and Odd-dude are classic 'glibers'.  As you have been told several times glib comments accented with emoticons are, "readily fluent, often thoughtlessly, superficially, or insincerely so".


----------



## Flagwavrusa (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Flagwavrusa said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 18, 2011)

Flagwavrusa said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Flagwavrusa said:
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Mar 18, 2011)

Speaking of being fooled, who says  gubmint is there to to solve all the world's problems?


----------



## Samson (Mar 18, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Speaking of being fooled, who says  gubmint is there to to solve all the world's problems?



Government Bureaucrats.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 18, 2011)

Samson said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of being fooled, who says  gubmint is there to to solve all the world's problems?
> ...


...and useful idiot fools like DogCatcher.


----------



## Samson (Mar 18, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Well, most Dogcatchers are Gubmint Employees.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 18, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Speaking of being fooled, who says  gubmint is there to to solve all the world's problems?



No one.  That's simply another piece of bullshit passed on as a truth by people like you.  Government has a purpose, what that purpose is and is not is open to debate.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 18, 2011)

You're the fool who seems to believe that most, if not all, of the nation's ills can be solved by gubmint programs, not me.

Then again, I'm not the fool who points to one of their very few and justifiably enumerated powers (national defense), as a meta-model of how to create jobs via authoritarian central control.

But please, carry on....You're far more inadvertently amusing than you'll ever realize.


----------



## Vanquish (Mar 18, 2011)

Any conservative that uses the "useful idiot" meme gets a strike against logic before I even read their post.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 18, 2011)

Any dweeb who spouts liberoidal crapola, yet still tries to cower behind the cynical meme of "centrist", has two strikes on him before I even click on the post.


----------



## Charles_Main (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> "Washington &#8211; House GOP leaders are rushing a vote to ban all federal funding for NPR in an effort to reforge party unity a day after it splintered badly.
> 
> Fifty-four conservatives defected Tuesday to vote against a spending bill that would forestall a government shutdown for three weeks that they felt didn't go far enough to cut spending. But there is little chance of House Republican leaders losing votes in its bid to kill funding for NPR &#8211; the third such vote in weeks. The issue has been a rallying point among conservatives for decades.
> 
> ...



Here we go again, yet another Lefty who can not fathom Jobs being created in any way, OTHER than with Massive Federal Government spending bills. 

Sorry we tried that, it failed. Only Private Sector Job Growth is going to save us, and it does not take any "jobs Bills" to happen. It simply takes some confidence on the part of the Private Sector, that Big Brother is going to let them do their Jobs with out any massive new Taxes or Mandates.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 18, 2011)

Oddball said:


> You're the fool who seems to believe that most, if not all, of the nation's ills can be solved by gubmint programs, not me.
> 
> Then again, I'm not the fool who points to one of their very few and justifiably enumerated powers (national defense), as a meta-model of how to create jobs via authoritarian central control.
> 
> But please, carry on....You're far more inadvertently amusing than you'll ever realize.



LMAO, yes Odd-Dude you are a fool, a fool who lacks both imagination and creativity, one who relies on an idology of unproven truths usually articulated in one or two sentence idiotgrams, punctuated with personal attacks.  
Problem solving requires more than parroting a few cliches.  
I used the Navy as an example because I served in the Navy; spend my paltry income in the San Diego businesses near the 32nd St. station.  I also posted two other examples - highways and the RR, items you failed to mention because you are dishonest.  A liar by omission is still a liar.


----------



## Dot Com (Mar 18, 2011)

Peroxide Jesus seems bitter. Being in the minority will do that to people ;-)


----------



## Oddball (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > You're the fool who seems to believe that most, if not all, of the nation's ills can be solved by gubmint programs, not me.
> ...


Those "unproven truths" brought America from literally nothing to the point of being the world's economic powerhouse in a scant 150 years....All with a central government that largely stayed the hell out of the way and let people solve their own problems, created by men you'd hold in utter contempt were they alive today.

The military is completely irrelevant and provides no true economic growth industry.

Railroads relied upon granted rights-of-way to favored people...Mostly those "Robber Barons" that pinheads like you beller about, when you need an example of how much capitalism sucks. And if the Interstate highway system is really the best thing you can come up with to show how economic central control creates jobs, then you have a list with about zero bench depth.

Try again, Vermin.


----------



## AquaAthena (Mar 18, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



And we DO have a Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, to thank for that idea and all those jobs!


----------



## The T (Mar 18, 2011)

wry catcher said:


> oddball said:
> 
> 
> > you're the fool who seems to believe that most, if not all, of the nation's ills can be solved by gubmint programs, not me.
> ...


 
**dodge*...*


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 18, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



No.  I don't negotiate or debate with assholes.  You're now free to make another pervese sexual remark.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 18, 2011)

The T said:


> wry catcher said:
> 
> 
> > oddball said:
> ...



Yes I did serve in the Navy, Nero.  Unlike you and the rest of the callous conservative chicken hawks I served my country.  Probably one reason I find punks such as you and Odd-dude disgusting.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> No.  I don't negotiate or debate with assholes.  You're now free to make another pervese sexual remark.



I never had reason to believe otherwise. After all, if you negotiated or debated yourself, youd be pretty screwed up in the head. 

Doesn't mean you should talk civilly with your fellow man. That goes the same for the others in the thread.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Yes I did serve in the Navy, Nero.  Unlike you and the rest of the callous conservative chicken hawks I served my country.  Probably one reason I find punks such as you and Odd-dude disgusting.



It's a shame you've been working so hard to destroy it lately.


----------



## Samson (Mar 18, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I did serve in the Navy, Nero.  Unlike you and the rest of the callous conservative chicken hawks I served my country.  Probably one reason I find punks such as you and Odd-dude disgusting.
> ...



Meh.


Not to worry. 

The quality of his work is pretty damn pathetic.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 18, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Yes I did serve in the Navy, Nero.  Unlike you and the rest of the callous conservative chicken hawks I served my country.  Probably one reason I find punks such as you and Odd-dude disgusting.


I was in SAC, swab jockey.

But I don't boast and wave my service around in everyone's face, as though it makes me a better man than the next, because that's how SAC men roll.

Likewise, I haven't wrapped my entire identity around something I did for a mere few years of my life.

Now, I believe you were running your alligator mouth about disgusting punks?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 18, 2011)

Samson said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



I think it's rather sad that we have that to be happy about.


----------



## Samson (Mar 18, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



I think your sentence structure is rather sad.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 18, 2011)

If I create a job position and hire someone to fill that position, I have created a job.   Whether it's working for the government or a construction company it's still a job.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 18, 2011)

Flopper said:


> If I create a job position and hire someone to fill that position, I have created a job.   Whether it's working for the government or a construction company it's still a job.


Jobs "created" by expanding  bureaucracy don't increase economic production....They are, in fact, a net drain upon it.

You flunk econ 101.


----------



## The T (Mar 19, 2011)

Flopper said:


> If I create a job position and hire someone to fill that position, I have created a job. Whether it's working for the government or a construction company it's still a job.


 
But you FORGET the _Function of GOVERNMENT...this is WHERE YOU FAIL...miserably._


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 19, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> Cutting Federal spending *is* a jobs bill.



Really?

Laying off federal workers, reducing the number of federal contracts going to private business/industry, cutting funding going to the states,

how does that create jobs???  That eliminates jobs.  That reduces employment.  

*It may very well be a good thing to do, but the last thing it is is a job creator.*

Like I've said, *the GOP agenda is job elimination, not job creation *- and it might even have merit,

but for chrissakes stop pretending that the GOP's agenda is a stimulus program.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Mar 19, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > If I create a job position and hire someone to fill that position, I have created a job.   Whether it's working for the government or a construction company it's still a job.
> ...



A job created to build/repair/improve infrastructure, as one example, both creates a job and adds value to the economy.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 19, 2011)

Where does the money come for those jobs....The Tooth Fairy?


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2011)

NYcarbineer said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


So does breaking windows till you look at who the cost then is shifted to.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2011)

Flopper said:


> If I create a job position and hire someone to fill that position, I have created a job.   Whether it's working for the government or a construction company it's still a job.


No, a construction company and government are not equivalent.  A construction company builds a product for a fee from the customer.  The trade is voluntary, and employees are paid for their work by someone who chose to pay them for it.

Government has no money except for what it gains through taxation (Fees, levies and fines are still taxes).  The people being taxed have no choice in this.  So if you create a government job, you must tax more to fund it.  What service is provided is not necessarily useful, productive or helpful.

I could slap a million people on the payroll shuffling paper back and forth and create jobs and paying people.  But where would the money come from?  Taxpayers who can ill afford the increased burden.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 19, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



ha! that reminds me of that old saw, ala Milton Friedman visiting a work site as the Chinese worked on 3 gorges dam.

 they had little heavy equipment, just hand tools, shovels wheelbarrows etc..he asked why the dearth of machinery etc..his hosts told him they wanted to employ as many people as possible...his response? then why not give them spoons....


----------



## driveby (Mar 19, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> the "brackets" issue is a Hannity/Faux N00z inspired, tempest in a teapot. ZZZzzz aside from being off-topic.




Bullshit, Obama knows more about the point guard at Marquette than he does about job creation and governing....


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


Well... that'd just be SILLY!

Besides, they were probably not being paid a decent wage either.  I'd rather pay 1 guy a lot of money to run a bulldozer than 100 men a low wage to break their backs

But that's because I'm a lover of industrialization and increased productivity.  Why do you think that no railroad has been entirely hand laid since the transcontinental railroad?  Because better ways to do more work have been found.

How about we ban windows and make work for the candle and lightbulb makers?


----------



## Trajan (Mar 19, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



what about all of those leather accouterment makers and manufacturers of equipment to harness horses..wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


oh no kidding.  I always remember the "Burns goes Bankrupt" episode of The Simpsons.

"Time to invest in the blue chips; "Amalgamated Hay, Acme Horsewhips, The New York Spat Corp. and that new Boston Opera Hat company!"


----------



## hortysir (Mar 19, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.


Hell, in the past 2 years, the government has been the LARGEST job creator


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 19, 2011)

It's obvious by the posts in support of the conclusion "Government cannot create jobs" those in support are bereft of any argument to support this conclusion.  I suppose they feel it is necessary to make silly, stupid and thoughtless comments since they cannot prove (or even offer evidence) that something they believe to be true cannot be supported by evidence or with examples.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> It's obvious by the posts in support of the conclusion "Government cannot create jobs" those in support are bereft of any argument to support this conclusion.  I suppose they feel it is necessary to make silly, stupid and thoughtless comments since they cannot prove (or even offer evidence) that something they believe to be true cannot be supported by evidence.


Riddle me this Batboy...

Where does government EARN money?

Remember... taxes, fees and fines is taking money by force, not earnings.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2011)

hortysir said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> ...


And yet we are in the red as a nation.  Now by 1.4 trillion this year alone.  How many businesses can survive operating in the red this bad or long?


----------



## editec (Mar 19, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


 
You, like the rest of the right wing ilk on this board,  have been _seriously misinformed._

In fact *much of the development of the US industrial base and economy was as a DIRECT RESULT of government imposing TARIFFS on imported goods.*

In fact, the *US government practically ran on no other source of revenue for the fist 150 years of operations*

Doubt me?

THEN DO SOME READING ON THE HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, and after you're done, report back to us on what you found, okay?

Because the last thing in the world, I'd want you to think is that what I i'm informing you about is some kind of LIBERAL DELUSION.

You who have been misformed, and by experts in the DISINFORMATION BUSINESS, too.

Wake up and smell the conspiracy, lad.

YOU are its victim and YOU sir, and your clueless right wing cranks, are suffering from a collective and terrible case of STOCKHOLM SYNDROME


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 19, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > It's obvious by the posts in support of the conclusion "Government cannot create jobs" those in support are bereft of any argument to support this conclusion.  I suppose they feel it is necessary to make silly, stupid and thoughtless comments since they cannot prove (or even offer evidence) that something they believe to be true cannot be supported by evidence.
> ...



Taxes, fees and fines have been authorized by the people's representatives.  Not taken by force or coercion.  Again, we see a silly, stupid and thoughtless effort.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Oh, not by force or coercion?  Try refusing to pay.  What's the result again?  Oh that's right.  Imprisonment and confiscation.

Again, what does Government do to EARN money?

Related bonus question;  What business can imprison or confiscate wealth from a person?


----------



## hortysir (Mar 19, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



  That's because a government bureaucracy is not designed to generate a profit


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 19, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Silly, stupid and thoughtless efforts +  dishonesty.  Change the law and you won't have a government.  That's the goal, apparently.  Another example of simple solutions creating serious problems.  Government has a purpose; see Somolia for an example of a non-government 'state'.


----------



## hortysir (Mar 19, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Where does the money come for those jobs....The Tooth Fairy?


One lady suggested, "Obama's stash"


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 19, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Your related question is a non sequitur.  Laws are enforced by the government.  Government doesn't 'earn' money or take a profit; government provides services paid for by taxes, fines and fees paid as authorized by the peoples representatives.
Of course you know this which is why your continued effort to bullshit the issue is an example of silly, stupid and thoughtless posts because you can't offer evidence or examples that government cannot create jobs.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 19, 2011)

editec said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Wrong....Tariffs are punitive actions meant to punish foreign competitors and reward people who've priced themselves out of the domestic market.

The feds ran on _*imposts, duties and excises*_ for the first 150 years....Those are _*specific*_ one-time charges, on _*specific products and commodities*_, in order to pay for_* specifically enumerated*_ federal powers and duties....One such example us the fuel tax to pay for roads and bridges....Don't use fuel, you don't pay the tax.

If anyone is terribly short on American economic history, it's you, sport.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Mar 19, 2011)

The OP should be asking:

WHERE ARE THE JOBS????

That Obama promised the "stimulus" would bring. Ya know, the millions of "shovel ready" ones?

But he won't, because he's a cheap hack.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 19, 2011)

Oddball said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Really Odd-Dude?  Would you mind providing some supporting documentation as evidence your expressed opinion is nothing more then that which emits from the rear end of a bull after eating?
You are full of digested bull feed, but very short on documentation, facts, evidence and creditiblity.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 19, 2011)

My post wasn't directed to you, Vermin.

When I want any shit out of you, I'll squeeze your head.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 19, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



are you serious? really? seriously? I have to ask....you DO know that  codified permanent fed.  tax structure on income as tax,  outside state pop. considerations   ( and don't bring up the 1800's either )  was via the 16th amendment.... in 1913?.... right?
 no, you didn't know, thats obvious, unreal. 

regain some credibility question -- what state was the first to enact an income tax upon all residents there of?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 19, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> It's obvious by the posts in support of the conclusion "Government cannot create jobs" those in support are bereft of any argument to support this conclusion.  I suppose they feel it is necessary to make silly, stupid and thoughtless comments since they cannot prove (or even offer evidence) that something they believe to be true cannot be supported by evidence or with examples.



How does the government raise capital to pay for jobs? TAXATION. 
What profit motive does the government have to formulate a business model?
Who COMPETES WITH GOVERNMENT?
How does the private sector compete with government that can print all the $$$ it wants, does not have to make a profit, does not have to balance their budgets and can pass regulations and laws to FAVOR one business, THEIRS, over the ones in the private sector?

Government has never and never will create ONE FUCKING JOB.
Government steals money at the point of a gun and gives it to others. That is not JOB CREATION.
That is THEFT.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 19, 2011)

Oddball said:


> My post wasn't directed to you, Vermin.
> 
> When I want any shit out of you, I'll squeeze your head.



You're not man enough.


----------



## code1211 (Mar 19, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> the "brackets" issue is a Hannity/Faux N00z inspired, tempest in a teapot. ZZZzzz aside from being off-topic.





Maybe so, but, you know what?  I got a little involved in my job this week and it completely slipped my mind that I needed to fill out a bracket.  I'm not much good at brtackets, anyway.

In my job, my decisions don't affect much of the world and nobody dies if I do it wrong and the number of dollars I can move around are counted in the thousands, not Trillions.

It makes one wonder what the Chief Executive places in priority that he can work out the brackets and play golf but cannot come up with a plan to balance the budget, win the war in Afgahnistan, cooperate with the Congress, lead the Democrat Party in fiscal restraint or just about anything else that might help the country or the world.

The Big 0 is an embarrasment.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 19, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > My post wasn't directed to you, Vermin.
> ...


Pfffft.

Go take your Prozac, keyboard kommando.


----------



## code1211 (Mar 19, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> 
> Proof?  Sure!  The United States Navy; employs officers and enisted personnel; uses products and services from the private sector to feed and cloth its employees; said employees spent their earnings on products and services sold by the private sector in shops which surround all naval facitites.
> 
> ...




MORE proof might indicate that you have presented proof.  You have not.

Please demonstrate how the Failed Stimulus created jobs.  Start by showing how many people were working in the USA on the day it was passed and the number of people working today.  The difference will be the "increase".

Hint:  The number of jobs has decreased during this period.

How jobs growth forecast was done - USATODAY.com


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 19, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> ...



All the stimulus did was take $$$ from taxpayers to give to workers that the market did not demand. Once the tax $ runs out there is not a job left UNLESS the market dictates it. 
And what are we left with? More debt.
But there is one government that did "create jobs".
The Chink government. And the $$ that stimulus workers were paid with was written on THE BANK OF CHINA.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 19, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > If I create a job position and hire someone to fill that position, I have created a job.   Whether it's working for the government or a construction company it's still a job.
> ...


*The teacher who trains the architects and engineers of tomorrow, the fireman or policemen who save the business, the employee at the SBA who helps a small businessman get a loan, and hundreds of thousands of other government jobs are increasing our economic productivity.  Wall Street bankers who ship jobs overseas, increasing the profits of foreign owned corporations are certainly not increasing economic  productivity in this country.  Just as in government there are many jobs in the private sector that are totally unproductive.  I know have had a couple of them.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 19, 2011)

The author of this thread needs some practice over at People.com!!!

Nobody can be this fcukking stupid!!!


----------



## Trajan (Mar 19, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




I cannot think of any of those vocations that cannot be served by the private sector...


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2011)

> Silly, stupid and thoughtless efforts +  dishonesty.  Change the law and  you won't have a government.  That's the goal, apparently.  Another  example of simple solutions creating serious problems.  Government has a  purpose; see Somolia for an example of a non-government 'state'.



uh huh... a non answer because the truth burns in your skull.

BAM!


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


 

Very GOOOOOD!  You answered it correctly.  Government does not earn anything and no business can imprison or confiscate properly.  Excellent job!

The government has no money to pay for employees except what it takes from the citizenry.  Government jobs do not create anything though.  They deplete the economy because money is taken out of the taxpayer's hands that could have gone towards investing or consuming.

All government jobs are like this.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


Why is there a large tariff currently on Brazilian Sugar imports?  Hmmm?

To protect US sugar growers who cannot grow it as efficiently and for higher prices.  Drop the tariff, and the bottom falls out of the sugar market in this nation.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 19, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


All for a piece of the action.  There is a second law of economic thermodynamics it seems.  Every set of hands something passes through, the cost goes up or funds available shrinks.

Monetary entropy sucks.



> I cannot think of any of those vocations that cannot be served by the  private sector...



And served better because of the profit motive to perform well or be replaced by someone who WILL do better.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 19, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


I can think of no better way to turn this country into a plutocracy, than following your suggestion.  Anytime you privatize public services such as fire and police, you introduce the profit motive into the performance of the service.  Service would go to the wealthy areas where costs of protection is low and profits are the highest.  Providing protection in poor neighborhoods where tax collections are low and cost of delivering service are high makes no sense in private business.  If government contracts for these services and put the requirements on the company they put on the public services, then you have accomplished nothing.


----------



## Samson (Mar 19, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



How do you assume that "profits are the highest" in wealthy areas?

Why wouldn't profitability be directly proportional to, say, fewer fires, or fewer murders, or fewer drop-outs?

Let's say that you, as the Gotham City Manager, awards the contract for policing Gotham to two companies: Batman Security Inc, and Robin Protective Service Co. Then you divide the city into two halves representing approximately equal crime zones, and give one to BSI and the other to RPSC. Whichever decreases the murder rate more after a year receives a 20% bonus.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 19, 2011)

Samson said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



apparently thats the way his minds works.*shrugs*...I agree with your view.


----------



## Samson (Mar 19, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



The Government often has no concept of what it takes to be profitable, much less even the definition of profit. Note that if you replace "Progressive Tax" for "Profit" in flopper's commentary, then it makes sense:

"Service would go to the wealthy areas where costs of protection is low and [progressive taxes] are the highest.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 19, 2011)

Samson said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


Police alone have very little impact on murder rates.  Arrest rate might be more appropriate in your example.  

The biggest problem with a private police force is the agenda. Public police forces are charged with protecting the citizens of the cities and towns over which they have jurisdiction.  Private police officers are different. They don't work for us; they work for corporations. They're focused on the priorities of their employers that hire them. They're less concerned with due process, public safety and civil rights.  In short, they serve a corporation whose mission is to maximize profits and minimize costs which is not always synonymous with good police work.  The public police are sworn to serve and protect the people, not the corporation.

Also, many of the laws that protect us from police abuse do not apply to the private sector. Constitutional safeguards that regulate police conduct, interrogation and evidence collection do not apply to private individuals.

Of the possible government services that could be privatized, the police department should be at the bottom of the list.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 19, 2011)

What?...Police aren't acting on political agendas right now?

Have you ever heard of seat belt laws?... the .08 BAC level?...asset forfeiture?

Shit, dude....Come back when you have, at least, _*a plausible*_ objection.


----------



## Samson (Mar 19, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...






You're from the Bureau of Hair Splitting, Department of Circle Jerks aren't you.


----------



## hortysir (Mar 20, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Anytime you privatize public services such as fire and police, you introduce the profit motive into the performance of the service.








I just LOVE how you conveniently omitted schools/teachers from that statement!!


----------



## code1211 (Mar 20, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...





So, what you are saying is that because police protection is a public enterprise, the police protection in the Los Angeles area is as good in Watts as it is in Beverly Hills?

Cue the Circus music.


----------



## code1211 (Mar 20, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Your thesis is that the best professionals come from public education and NOT from private education?

As far as the government not producing competitive business ventures, if you think that a non-competitive environment produces better products than a competitive one, you are willfully ignorant, woefully young or the steward of your local government employee union.

I don't know why I still get mail 6 days a week at my home.  What 's the point?  Every other day for 3 deliveries per week would be sufficient and cut the payroll in half.  This is not rocket science.

Garbage pick up, building maintenance, groundskeeping, security, foodservices, and almost any other thing you can name are all more efficient when run privately.  Why?  Because the guy who wants the business will figure out a way to do the same for less money or do more for the same money.

This is how the free market works.  The Free market produces things like the Toyota fleet, the Apple computer and the self check out lane at the grocery store.

The Government produces things like a toll road that cannot show a profit, the DMV and the Post office which is bleeding red ink.

By the by, the toll road I'm talking about lost money for years in Indiana, had maintenance projects not completed due to lack of funds, was sold to private interests and now has more lanes, fewer pot holes and shows a profit.  The governor mused that he had taken a lump sum payment to dump a loss leader from his balance sheet.

That lump sum was used to finance other projects that were not being done due in part to the monies wasted on maintaining the toll road poorly.  

A private firm took this over and is making a profit doing the job better than the government did it and spending less and producing more.

Reason Foundation - Bottom-Line on Indiana Toll Road Deal


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 20, 2011)

This thread is still going???? Should be in the POLITICS forum!!!

The chances of another stimulus bill are far less than the wealthy getting a 50% tax break!!!!


----------



## code1211 (Mar 20, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Everything you said above could be spelled out in the contract to be awarded after the RFP was issued.

Regardless of which ones come first and which ones come last, every job will be done better at a lower cost and will use more innovative methods if it is let to private interests than if it left to run unchecked by government beaurocracies using workers who are more loyal to their union than to the job at hand.


----------



## Big Fitz (Mar 20, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Actually, next to teachers, it could be one of the first to privatize.  Same with public utilities since much of that work is already done by private contractors to begin with.

Really, outside of the courts, what part of local government could not be privatized save for a small staff for administrating the function and monitoring of private contractors?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 20, 2011)

The biggest boom to my business was when Reagan was elected. I was just starting my detective business and took in ANY AND ALL business.
Reagan, over the advice of most of his staff and ALL JUSTICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT, ended the Federal Marshall's Service serving Federal Court civil papers.
And I took in a ton of it as a process server. The system is more efficient IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
Try doing that in the State courts and all of the local sherrifs fight you together.


----------



## editec (Mar 20, 2011)

Oddball said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


 
Try reading a book, lad.

I know you think you can just make it up as you go along, but in the world of intelligent debate facts trump opinion.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 20, 2011)

editec said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


I've read books, sport, lots of them.

In doing so, I've developed the ability to distinguish an excise tax meant to pay for certain functions of lawful de jure government and protectionist tariffs, the only motivation for which is to keep out foreign economic competitors and prop up domestic businesses that can't _*earn*_ their way.

The economic history of America before and after 1913 is there for all to see...Maybe you could take a serious look at it yourself sometime.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 20, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


No, I said, Teachers that train our architects and engineers are contributing to our economic productivity. I made no distinction between private or public schools.  As it happens 90% of the population are educated in public schools.  I certainly made no judgment as to which provided the better education, however both promote economic productivity.

In general, a competitive environment will produce a better product or service, but I do believe some services if performed by the government will produce better results. I dont believe contracting out the US military, local and federal law enforcement would produce better results.  A solider or a law enforcement officer swears an oath to protect and defend with their life this country and its citizens.  Do you think you are going to get that kind of commitment from a rent a cop?  I dont think so. 

Laws that protect us from police abuse do not apply to the private sector. Constitutional safeguards that regulate police conduct, interrogation and evidence collection do not apply to private individuals.    

You get mail 6 days a week because Congress has not given the post office permission to reduce mail delivery.  The post office has asked Congress to consider reducing mail delivery.  So far they have done nothing.  I think both government and individuals would have little objection.  The problem is that many businesses are against it.   

Many services, such as garbage pick up, building maintenance, and grounds keeping should be privatized.  In my city, garbage pick up, landscape maintenance, custodian services are privatized plus many other services.  You might be surprised at how many services are already privatized in your area.

I think there are plenty of services that can be privatized to produce better results.  I just dont believe security of our communities and our nation is one of them.  Maybe you would be happy with a rent a cop protecting your neighborhood, but I doubt your neighbors would.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 20, 2011)

job 'bills'?

sure...


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 21, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



First the jobs for building roads and etc are funded by taxpayer dollars so that gains the economy nothing because private sector companies bid, to the govt, for the infrastructure job. The govt then writes a check to the winning bidder that comes from tax revenues. Not to mention the fact that most of these jobs go over budget (think The Big Dig in Boston) Those jobs are temporary so are nothing more than a band aid (similar to the stimulus bill). This country needs permanent jobs that are actually paid for by private sector funds. The govt simply can not supply the jobs that are needed to get this economy restarted. If it could, the stimulus would have worked.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 21, 2011)

I see where you are coming from but feel by improving infrastructure you enable more productivity from the private sector.

In that same amount of time, by buying Chinese DVD players the private sector(me) has redistributed American wealth to China.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 22, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



You're wrong jeffrocket.  The stimulus did work and would have been more effective if politics - party first - had not superceded country first.  Evidence of Government funded projects helping to create wealth and grow the GNP are everywhere.  From rail roads to Canals, highways to airports, seaports to space exploration.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 22, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...


Ok, I'll play.  Say you're the economic advisor to the new president in 2009.  What economic policy would you recommend?


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 22, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



The results just don't bear out your claim. The majority of the stimulus was payback to the unions and special interest groups that had a big part in Obama winning. Would love to see some links to support your statement of govt funded jobs being everywhere. Not to mention that govt funded jobs, as I stated before, do nothing to really help the economy as privates sector jobs would. This President has stated many times his aversion to private sector even to go as far as calling them "the enemy"....not a real wise way to instill confidence in job creation.

 Unfortunately for this country, your comment about politics first is spot on. Neither side has the people's best interest in mind; their maintaining of power is first and foremost. As I have stated many times before, the people argue with each other which takes the pressure off the politicians and we all ultimately loose. The country is the most divided with the most ineffective President, administration and politicians. While the people scream for a reduction in spending neither side can come up with what represents no more than a 1% reduction.


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 22, 2011)

Flopper said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



First of all, I don't take the economic problems as a game to play but here are a few idea I would look towards.
This administration should have embraced the private sector rather than demonizing them. Reduce the corp tax rate as it is the 2nd highest in the world and will probably be #1 with Japan's problems. Make companies want to invest in bringing jobs back to the US. Don't over regulate to the point that business is stifled. Govt should not be in the business of picking winners and losers as they did with GM when bondholders and vendors were left holding the bag while unions were given a pass.
The fact that this administration spent more in Feb 2011 than the entire 2007 year should be a giant red flag. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/8/obama-spending-hits-new-records/
The GAO just put out a list of all the wasteful govt spending because duplicate agencies. That would be something to tackle though they have listed some of these before and administrations just can't seem to make any real changes. 
Throwing money at the problem ala the stimulus has historically failed. Why can't the US learn from previous mistakes made by ourselves and even other countries


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 23, 2011)

Are GM union wages the same as the were before?

My understanding was by letting GM fail we would create a level of economic instability which just might have gotten a few actual radical leftists elected.  

Not to mention America would be down to 1 automobile manufacturer.  

Oh well.  As a whole guess that means we suck/lost/just went bankrupt twenty years after the USSR.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 23, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



First government funded jobs:

The transcontinental railroad, opened the west, allowed farms to move product to eastern cities and made the Big Four mega-rich (one result Stanford U. -each grad and their contribution to society); hundreds(?) of small towns became centers for commerce.
The Golden Gate Bridge, open northern counties of Napa and Sonoma to easy commute to The City, private development of land including for housing and vineyards - lots of wealth created there.
Building light rail to the avenues in San Francisco, allowing for the development of thousands of homes for returning WWII vets in an area which previously was nothing but dunes of sand.
Building BART, moving commuters across the bay, connecting people from communities with less costly homes to jobs in SF and San Jose (Silicon Valley) where only those with very high salaries can afford to live.
The National Highway Act of 1956, much like the transcontinental railroad provided thousands of entreperneurs the opportunity to open shops and services along the roadways.
World War II, funded by taxpayers and war bonds provided for nearly full employment, later the GI bill provided an avenue for vets to attend school and build careers, buy homes.

I believe you confuse the political parties and pols.  The parties clearly are defined; the D's represent labor, the R's represent capital and the pols represent themselves.  Don't watch their lips, watch their feet and hands.  It's not what a pol says, it's what s/he does.


----------



## Vanquish (Mar 23, 2011)

Anyone who says the stimulus didn't work must, by necessity, admit that tax breaks don't work...as a good 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts/breaks.

Boom! There goes your Reaganomics.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 23, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...


It&#8217;s 2009 and the new president is facing an economy that is near collapse.  The country is loosing 2 million jobs a month.  Unemployment is nearly 10%.  The Dow Jones Average is down 7,000 points 52%, banks are not loaning money, and retail sales and factory orders are falling like a rock.

And your advice to the president would be to embrace the private sector, don&#8217;t spend money on job stimulus, hold back on regulations, and cut the corporate tax rate.  If the president had listened to your advice, the opposition would have crucified him for lack of action, and we would most probably be in a depression.

Reducing corporate taxes is a good idea.  But why would you think reducing corporate rates would stimulate the economy when 10 consecutive interest rates cuts had virtually no effect on economy expansion.  Half the corporations in the country were not even paying corporate tax.  Corporate giants like Exxon with huge profits of 10.3 billion dollars in 2009 paid nothing in corporate taxes due to tax loopholes.  Small businesses passed their income thru to their personal income tax to reduce taxes.  With that said, we do need to reduce rates and eliminate loopholes.

There is no guaranteed that fiscal stimulus, either government spending or tax cuts or monetary action will pull the country out of a server recession.  These are only carrots offered to business and consumers.  In 2009 banks and corporations were hoarding cash, cutting back expenses, and closing outlets across the country.  This was not an environment in which cutting a tax that most corporations were not paying would promote expansion.

I don&#8217;t see how you claim that actions of the administration have failed.  Unemployment is down, factory orders and retail sales are up, and the Dow is up over 5,000 points. 

"American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.66 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or non-inflation-adjusted terms."    
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/business/economy/24econ.html?_r=2&hp


----------



## Jack Fate (Mar 23, 2011)

Unemployment tecnichally is at 9%.  That's not counting all the people whose benefits have run out and are on welfare or only working part time and on food stamps, which has never been higher.  Obama is a glittering collasal failure.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 23, 2011)

Jack Fate said:


> Unemployment tecnichally is at 9%.  That's not counting all the people whose benefits have run out and are on welfare or only working part time and on food stamps, which has never been higher.  Obama is a glittering collasal failure.



This is a problem.  Too many parrot the GOP propaganda and offer statistics as if they prove anything.  Stats can prove everything and nothing, as Mark Twain once wrote, "there are liars, damn liars and statistics.
Mr. Fate's evidence that President Obama's efforts are a "glittering collasal (sic) failure" because unemployment is at 9% is silly (that's as polite as I can be),  We were as noted in a previous post looking into the abyss; the economy is not great but it is in recovery and given that our nation is so divided and many - too many - worked to make sure he failed, President Obama has done a great job.


----------



## The T (Mar 23, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > Unemployment tecnichally is at 9%. That's not counting all the people whose benefits have run out and are on welfare or only working part time and on food stamps, which has never been higher. Obama is a glittering collasal failure.
> ...


 
He's correct, and the stats he quoted were being kind.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 23, 2011)

Jack Fate said:


> Unemployment tecnichally is at 9%.  That's not counting all the people whose benefits have run out and are on welfare or only working part time and on food stamps, which has never been higher.  Obama is a glittering collasal failure.


You are correct.  We never count people who are not seeking employment in the rate.  So when unemployment in the 90's were running 4 or 5 percent, the true unemployment was considerably higher.


----------



## Samson (Mar 23, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Jack Fate said:
> 
> 
> > Unemployment tecnichally is at 9%.  That's not counting all the people whose benefits have run out and are on welfare or only working part time and on food stamps, which has never been higher.  Obama is a glittering collasal failure.
> ...



 9 > 5

But thanks for the history lesson.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 23, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



You mean from taxpaying projects.
And taxes are too high.
Government funds NOTHING. Especially now. Government BORROWS.


----------



## Samson (Mar 23, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Interestingly, although "evidence of government projects helping to create wealth and grow GNP are everywhere" none seem to be offered as examples of results from the $800B Stimulous.

Recovery.gov: Stimulus Website Redesigned for $9.5 million - ABC News

As always, Wry  misses the relevant point.

Fail


----------



## Rozman (Mar 23, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> "Washington  House GOP leaders are rushing a vote to ban all federal funding for NPR in an effort to reforge party unity a day after it splintered badly.
> 
> Fifty-four conservatives defected Tuesday to vote against a spending bill that would forestall a government shutdown for three weeks that they felt didn't go far enough to cut spending. But there is little chance of House Republican leaders losing votes in its bid to kill funding for NPR  the third such vote in weeks. The issue has been a rallying point among conservatives for decades.
> 
> ...



And now the neo-cons want to attack another oil rich country (Libya).


Are you aware that there's a Democrat in the WH....and he's the one taking us into war.


----------



## pinqy (Mar 24, 2011)

Jack Fate said:


> Unemployment tecnichally is at 9%.  That's not counting all the people whose benefits have run out and are on welfare or only working part time and on food stamps, which has never been higher.  Obama is a glittering collasal failure.



The unemployment rate has NEVER been based on eligibility or receipt of benefits, so yes it does include those whose benefits have run out and those never eligible for benefits. 

 As for part timers, a part time job is a job, so why do you think they should be considered UNemployed (especially as the vast majortiy of people are working part time for non-economic reasons).


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 24, 2011)

Samson said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



As usual sammie boy you post nothing of substance.  Are you really as stupid as your posts imply, or simply so desperate for attention you go for the glib and not the gusto.


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 24, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




OK then point out all of these jobs created or "saved" by the wonderful stimulus. You are talking of a completely different time and I think you will not have a list for 2010.  A time before career minded politicians who won't make a stand at the risk of not getting re elected. Do you disagree with my previous statement about politicians? Or do you feel they are doing a great job?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 25, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



2010, in my backyard:  The Bay Bridge (Eastern Span) and the fourth bore of the Caldecott Tunnel (A tunnel through the East Bay Hills connecting Contra Costa County (pop: 1,000,000) to San Francisco, Oakland/Alameda and San Jose/Silicon Valley (both are projects of several years duration).  In addition dozens of repairs to bridges, many build by the WPA, sea walls protecting Western SF from the rising oceans, earthquake retrofitting for real estate and hundreds of small transportation projects.
Transportation improvement provide for easier and cheaper commercial enterprise, save fuel and provide jobs for thousands of construction workers who spend their income in local business.

Pols have always put their election first and everything else second.  I agree Pols are more focused on themselves and their reelection than the common good.  Blame our collective failure to control the money which drives politics and at least consider how Citizens United v. FEC will exacerbate this very issue; watch how the Republican's will refuse to consider allowing the people of California to vote on tax extensions because each individual has been threatened to do so will end their career.


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 27, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



The shape of today's economy just does not show improvement. While there may be isolated projects in some states, the unemployment numbers are still double digit and show very little, if any, signs of improving. You would think that spending almost 1 trillion dollars, we should be much lower with those emp. numbers. In the big picture, the stimulus did very little to improve jobs numbers so the justification to increase the deficit in order to improve the situation has done a very poor job. When we borrow money to improve unemployment and the economy and things look as they are today, I consider that a failure. The deficit today is 14+ trillion and increasing every minute. With that fact and the current average unemployment numbers , do you still feel the stimulus was productive? IMO it was like paying 800 thousand dollars towards the 14 trillion. Not very wise based on the numbers.
To keep bringing up Republicans while ignoring the poor performance of the Dems seems very partisan based rather than factual. Neither "side" has a lock on continuing to destroy the US economy. As I stated before, power, control and maintaining that at all costs is what most politicians are about and the ones that want to actually get serious with the spending just get swallowed up by the system.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 28, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...


The economy show no sign of improvement?  GDP has been rising for more than year. Retail sales have increased every month since May 2010.  The index of consumer confidence has been going up since last Aug. The stock market has almost doubled in value since it's low in 2009.  Unemployment is 8.9% down from it's high of 10.1% in Oct. 2009. And new home sales are up this year.  I think those are some pretty strong signs of improvement.


----------



## jeffrockit (Mar 30, 2011)

Flopper said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



All those numbers have been artificially propped up by the fed's continuing to print money. It simply can't be sustained. And again, we can't have a true recovery with double digit unemployment...and those numbers are not changing. Also, the jump in oil prices will only serve to undo any positive signs. States are nearing bankruptcy and the only solution is layoffs. That will increase the unemployment numbers. 
It is all smoke and mirrors until those numbers begin to decline and many economist are predicting a double dip recession. You have to agree that a 14+ trillion deficit only helps to move things in the wrong direction and neither side have put forth any meaningful cuts to the spending. No one wants to touch the big three Medicare, Medicaid and SS. Just going after the waste in all of those would be a big step in reducing the deficit.


----------



## pinqy (Mar 30, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> And again, we can't have a true recovery with double digit unemployment...and those numbers are not changing.



Except we don't have double digit unemployment and the numbers are changing...February was 8.9%, down from 9.0 which was down from 9.4 which was down from 9.8


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 30, 2011)

pinqy said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > And again, we can't have a true recovery with double digit unemployment...and those numbers are not changing.
> ...



The initial post in this thread was to ask where are the bills to create jobs.  We have seen much rhetoric from the House Republicans but little action save for their ass kissing of the social conservatatives and tea party.
I doubt very much the House Republicans care about the misery of the unemployed - clearly blaming those out of work as lazy and not looking for jobs because they get unemployment (which the R's wish to eliminate) is absurd.  Yet some believe it and post it as if it is the absolute truth.
It is obvious that the Republican Party has lost it's soul, if in fact it ever had one.  Callous conservatives dominate the debate and winning the next election is the sole focus of R Party leaders.


----------



## Liberty (Mar 30, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> "Washington  House GOP leaders are rushing a vote to ban all federal funding for NPR in an effort to reforge party unity a day after it splintered badly.
> 
> Fifty-four conservatives defected Tuesday to vote against a spending bill that would forestall a government shutdown for three weeks that they felt didn't go far enough to cut spending. But there is little chance of House Republican leaders losing votes in its bid to kill funding for NPR  the third such vote in weeks. The issue has been a rallying point among conservatives for decades.
> 
> ...



youre operating under the false premise that it is the federal government's job to hold your hand and be your nanny.


----------



## peach174 (Mar 30, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> "Washington &#8211; House GOP leaders are rushing a vote to ban all federal funding for NPR in an effort to reforge party unity a day after it splintered badly.
> 
> Fifty-four conservatives defected Tuesday to vote against a spending bill that would forestall a government shutdown for three weeks that they felt didn't go far enough to cut spending. But there is little chance of House Republican leaders losing votes in its bid to kill funding for NPR &#8211; the third such vote in weeks. The issue has been a rallying point among conservatives for decades.
> 
> ...




What did you say about neo-cons attacking Libya? President Obama has done it.
When are the voters going to get it through their heads that the Federal Government has gotten way to big for it's britches?
NPR will do just fine without gov. assistance.
And Gov. can't create jobs. The private sector does.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 30, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...


It&#8217;s been a long time since I&#8217;ve seen a post with so many things that are just not true.  First of all the Fed cannot as you say prop up those numbers.  The government and the Fed can provide monetary and fiscal stimulus but economic indicators such as retail sales, the stock market, and unemployment depend on a response from consumers and businesses.  If the economy does not respond, those indicators are not going to improve.   Unemployment is 8.9% down from it&#8217;s high of 10.1% 18 months ago.  All of the unemployment indicators, U1-U6 are down. Most economists are not predicting a double dip.  On the contrary, most economist are predicting a continued slow recovery through 2011 and 2012.

Deficit spending is a long-term problem in this country as it is in most of the world and will continue to be.  It is has little impact on the current recovery but threatens long-term growth of the economy. 

Both parties want to do something about entitlement programs, but they can&#8217;t because these programs either directly or indirectly effect about half the population.


----------



## RachelMadcow (Mar 30, 2011)

Obama has created the most anti-business climate in US history..................where are the jobs? 



LOL



14 trillion in debt
trillions in unfunded healthcare socialism
Tax Tax tax
regulate everything
Punish success
Tax capital
Death taxes
Wars
wars
wars
and more wars






Duh?


But?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 31, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > "Washington &#8211; House GOP leaders are rushing a vote to ban all federal funding for NPR in an effort to reforge party unity a day after it splintered badly.
> ...



Those opposed to NPR and PBS never discuss the content.  They simply and wrongly claim both are 'liberal' propaganda.  Clearly they never watch/listen or if they do so with a biased perspective and a closed mind.

Government can create jobs, only the ignorant, liars or fools state otherwise.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 31, 2011)

RachelMadcow said:


> Obama has created the most anti-business climate in US history..................where are the jobs?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I doubt there will be more job bills, because they aren't needed.  The private sector is creating jobs.


----------



## Jack Fate (Mar 31, 2011)

This thread had to be started by a lefty.  Only a dumb lib lefty would think jobs come from government bills.  Our education system is a collosal glittering failure.  God help the USA.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 31, 2011)

The Right contends that government can't really create jobs, only the private sector can create jobs,  which is nonsense.  Of course the government can create jobs.  Even thou tax dollars are used, a job is a job.  The theory of course is that if tax dollars were not used to create government jobs, those dollars would be used to create private sector jobs.  Just because those dollars are left in hands of the public and businesses does not mean they will be used to create jobs.  A business goes not expand just because it has additional dollars.  Also those dollars may be used to create jobs abroad.

It's always better to have job creation from the private sector because it produces goods and services that provide economic stimulus, but when the economy is contracting business will not expand until the business feels the bottom has been reached and there are signs of recover.  So during the economic contraction, the choice is between no new jobs and government jobs.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 31, 2011)

Jack Fate said:


> This thread had to be started by a lefty.  Only a dumb lib lefty would think jobs come from government bills.  Our education system is a collosal glittering failure.  God help the USA.



Mr. Fate offers opinion, and an opinion which is not his own.  If he had evidence of his opinion I'm sure he would have offered some proof.


----------



## sparky (Apr 1, 2011)

*Democrats Plan to Unveil Make it in America Agenda*
*The second-ranking House Democrat, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, unveiled his caucus agenda to revitalize the manufacturing industry in a speech Tuesday.

Next week, Democrats will release what they dub as their Make it in America agenda. Last year, Democrats introduced a similar platform that included legislation that would compel lawmakers and administration officials to balance the trade deficit, develop a national manufacturing strategy, confront China on its manipulated currency and close tax loopholes for outsourcers, among other things.*

Democrats Plan to Unveil Make it in America Agenda | Economy In Crisis


----------



## Flopper (Apr 1, 2011)

sparky said:


> *Democrats Plan to Unveil Make it in America Agenda*
> *The second-ranking House Democrat, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, unveiled his caucus agenda to revitalize the manufacturing industry in a speech Tuesday.
> 
> Next week, Democrats will release what they dub as their Make it in America agenda. Last year, Democrats introduced a similar platform that included legislation that would compel lawmakers and administration officials to balance the trade deficit, develop a national manufacturing strategy, confront China on its manipulated currency and close tax loopholes for outsourcers, among other things.*
> ...


Good idea.  I think a lot of people prefer to buy American.  A program to encourage the purchase of American made goods could be the spark that revitalizes American manufacturing.  We need to start by clearly labeling products that are American made.  I doubt people know which Kenmore appliances are American made.  And that goes for Maytag, Amana, or Oreck.  The multinational corporations don't care where they manufacture as long as it maximizes profits.  If Americans want American made goods, you can bet they will be provided.

Still Made in USA.com - American-Made Home Appliances


----------



## jeffrockit (Apr 4, 2011)

Flopper said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Never stated the Fed propped up the numbers, I stated that the cause was printing money and that was what was propping up the economy. The govt is and has been printing money in order to "save us", read up in this link as you stated untruths from me The Problem With the Federal Reserve's Money-Printing - WSJ.com
You can choose to ignore that fact but eventually inflation will come into play. As far as unemployment goes, The Labor Department's statistics don't include the underemployed and those who have stopped looking for work. The Bureau of Labor statistics shows the actual number at 16.6%. Real unemployment rate higher than federal figures - MSN Money - New Investor Center

You can also choose to ignore the deficit and state that it does not affect the current economic situation but at some point, probably in the mid 30's for my kids ( they are both early 20's), they will bear the burden of the run away spending from the past 2 administrations. Please explain how a 14 trillion and counting deficit does not affect our economy...this should be fun
!
The fact that both parties feel like they can't touch entitlement spending is irrelevant as it is one if the 3 major contributing factors in reducing the deficit. I realize the govt has created a "cradle to grave nanny state" but without making changes, this country's economic system will eventually fail. You may not care since it might not happen in the immediate future, I do.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 4, 2011)

I care.  I simply didn't see the need for my tax dollars paying for interest on loans to conduct a war of choice off budget; billions of dollars spent on foreign aid and billions more given to the oil cartel.  If the payroll tax had been placed in a locked box as Gore advocated, the entitlement argument would not hold water.
Why the fuck is the GOP framing their argument on the backs of labor and simultaniously advocate tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?  Why scapegoat the aged, infirm and poor?  Because it works to attack the weak, and since these groups rarely donate to any party, the GOP has no incentive to care for the needy.
The Federal Income Tax needs to be newly structured; made more progressive by adding more brackets to increase revenue - revenue used to reduce debt.  Likewise, the limit on payroll taxes should be raised to at least $250,000 and placed in a locked box.
The argument that raising taxes will create more unemployment is weak; if tax cuts worked to increase unemployment we wouldn't be in the economic mess we find ourselves today.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 4, 2011)

jeffrockit said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...


In regard to deficit, the CBO says 9.5 trillion in deficits over the 10 years.  That&#8217;s an average deficit of 950 billion, a decrease of 400 billion from the 2010 deficit.  Both sides have promised further reductions in the deficit.  Both sides have called for a cuts in corporate taxes, which should be a help.  So no, I don&#8217;t think financial disaster is ahead of us.  

As far as inflation goes, we've seen it over 10% and have come back just fine.    I can remember when inflation of less than 5% was considered healthy. Inflation is now 2.11% including the run up in food and gas prices.  Will we have inflation?  You can count on it, but that doesn't mean financial disaster.  

Whenever you quote U6, you are not quoting actual unemployment.  You including people that are employed part time and people that are discourage and not looking for a job.  U6 is always higher than U3, the standard reported unemployment rate.  A few years ago when Bush was in office, Republicans raved about the low 4.6% unemployment and Democrats sited U6, "the real unemployment rate" as 9%.


----------



## Bernard (Apr 4, 2011)

MJMavro13 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The government can and does create jobs.  Saying government does not is bullshit propaganda, believing it does not is stupidity.
> ...





You are exactly right!


----------



## Bernard (Apr 4, 2011)

Floppper is in denial. When have the CBO estimated ever been accurate?


The U.S. is heading for financial ruin. A banana republic is our future.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 5, 2011)

Bernard said:


> Floppper is in denial. When have the CBO estimated ever been accurate?
> 
> 
> The U.S. is heading for financial ruin. A banana republic is our future.


Numerical economic projections are never correct regardless of who makes them because there are always unexpected issues that arise.  The CBO is the only non-partisan organization that both parties rely on for economic projections.  If you don't believe the CBO, then your are left with right and left wing economists, talk show hosts, and politicians, which is why both sides  quote the CBO.


----------



## Vanquish (Apr 5, 2011)

The government creates jobs all the time. Anyone who says it doesn't is completely wrong.

Do you know people who work for your state or federal government? Even if you don't...they exist. That's a job created by the government. Boom. End match. Done. Over.

States actually hire private individuals to do lots of specialized jobs in various industries. Take my profession - the law.  I recently represented a lady against the Alabama Department of Education. Instead of using in-house counsel, they hired 9 attorneys from a local, private firm. They actually had an on-going contract with those attorneys.

The government can create jobs...but what I'd rather see is that legislatures create climates for business and private individuals to thrive and improve the economy themselves.


----------



## Samson (Apr 5, 2011)

Vanquish said:


> ...but what I'd rather see is that legislatures create climates for business and private individuals to thrive and improve the economy themselves.



I'd like to see the same thing, and then I'd like to see the legislature adjourn for about a decade.


----------



## waltky (Apr 5, 2011)

New jobs not payin' enough...

*The Real Poverty Line in America*
_April 04, 2011   For all the optimistic talk of growth in the labor market - and the economy as a whole - the vast majority of jobs that are expected to be created in the coming years will not pay enough for average American families to get by, a new report shows._


> Of the jobs that the U.S. Department of Labor predicts will be added by 2018, less than half pay average salaries that provide economic security for a household with two workers and two children, and only about 13% pay enough to adequately support a single parent household with two children, according to data from Wider Opportunities for Women, a nonprofit group.  The American Dream of working hard to support your family is being rewritten by the growth of low-paying industries and rising expenses, said Joan Kuriansky, the nonprofits executive director.
> 
> These lower paying jobs include positions like construction workers, food prep workers, and even in some states, registered nurses, all of whom are expected to increase their ranks in the coming years. While each of these positions generally pay salaries well above the minimum wage, the report finds they pay less than one needs to attain economic security, as the minimum wage is not necessarily an adequate living wage.  WOW crunched the numbers and found that a single adult with no children would need to earn an average of $30,012 a year  or nearly twice the federal minimum wage - to be considered financially stable, while a household with two income earners and two children would need to earn $67,920 annually.
> 
> ...


----------

