Does anyone have a plan for long term employment recovery?

[PaulS1950]

Isn't that what wars and epidemics are for? To lower the population to a more managable level?
Wars increase jobs, paid for with taxes, to build things, paid for by taxes, that are totally destroyed leaving us in deeper debt than before the war with a lot of disabled people who fought in the war and are now on disability paid for by taxes.
War is a losing game. It has never brought anything but debt to a nation and misery to its people. Some wars are unavoidable but most are matters of convenience for the polititians.

 

[HUGGY]

Isn't that what wars and epidemics are for? To lower the population to a more managable level?
Wars increase jobs, paid for with taxes, to build things, paid for by taxes, that are totally destroyed leaving us in deeper debt than before the war with a lot of disabled people who fought in the war and are now on disability paid for by taxes.
War is a losing game. It has never brought anything but debt to a nation and misery to its people. Some wars are unavoidable but most are matters of convenience for the polititians.

The problem inherent in war is that most of the products are blown up and much of it is left behind when we leave. The cost of one Hellfire missile is $68,000 not counting the launch platform which could be a $100,000,000 dollar fighter jet with an additional support platform for the aircraft. If a fighter shoots 100 missiles in anger the actual cost of each weapon could be a couple of million bucks.

What does our enemy spend on an IAD? 50-100 dollars? Maybe?

Seems like it would be cheaper to send homos to these muslim countries to slip em ruffies and get photos of these guys in sexually compromising situations... post em on facebook ..or Al Jeseera and let the good times roll.. They do still kill homos right?

 

[PaulS1950]

IAD? you mean IED? (improvised explosive device)
I doubt they spend $2 on them but the IED is only good for targets that are on top of them. The AGMs are good for targets out to twenty miles and we have even more expensive devices that are almost completely useless unless the enemy is out in the open. Then again we have snipers who use a single bullet on each target at the price of less than $1 per round.
War doesn't make anyone rich exept the folks that make the weapons.

Huggy, why not just send some Christians over armed with Bibles - they still kill them too. Or maybe just Christian homophobes armed with Bibles. You know, "spread the wealth" as it were.

I am not promoting sending anyone into an Islamic country - just pointing out that the hatred of fanatics is not limited to any one religion or group.

 

[auditor0007]

Restore the 91% progressive tax rate and use the revenue to commence repair and improvement of our infrastructure.

It will create millions of good-paying jobs and many new industries. It won't impoverish the super rich but will merely make them a little less rich.

FDR did it and it created the middle classs.

You don't need a 91% tax rate. Besides, nobody ever paid that rate because there were so many loopholes. The tax code was like Swiss cheese. Taxes should be raised slightly, and across the board, including a slight increase to the capital gains rate.

For the long term, we really need to take a close look at our education system. Kids are spending $100,000 or more to go to college and come away with a degree in "I don't know what I want to do with this piece of paper". We need more vocational and direct training and less psychology majors. We need to do a much better job of steering young people to the training and education that will lead them into a field where there are actually jobs available.

My girlfriend's son got a degree in political science, because he thought he would go on to law school. Well, he decided against law school, so now he's a low paid bill collector. One of her daughters has just started in the nursing program at UT and her youngest daughter just finished her first year. She is going into elementary education. Both the healthcare field and education are good fields that will have jobs available. While education has been tough the last few years, that is going to change very soon as older teachers retire and younger people start having more kids. My oldest son wants to go into engineering and my youngest wants to join the Navy. All of them are headed into fields where they are almost certain to find decent paying jobs.

Getting our kids to figure out what they want to do and making certain it is in a field where they are likely to find work is extremely important. There are many job openings out there where employers can't find the right people because they are not getting the right training.

 

[Underhill]

A reduction in population will certainly do it if nothing else does.

No I doubt it would. The problem isn't current cost, those are relatively easy to manage.

The real problem is the debt we've wracked up already. And that would be hurt by lowering the number of people available to pay for it. In fact, one of the few reasons our economy isn't in even worse shape is immigration. Immigrants tend to be more productive and add a lot to the tax base.

 

[Sallow]

I keep hearing this complaint about Keynesian economics.

But it just isn't true. I've read "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" and Keynes never taught anything close to what we've been doing.

He did say that short term debt was fine, so long as you paid it down during recoveries. It's all part of his "countercyclical fiscal policies" He taught that in a bad turn the government could aid the recovery with spending (something that has since been proven).

The problem we have now has nothing to do with that notion. It's that we have continued to spend like blondes on 5th Avenue when the economy was good. Wringing up massive debt when we should have been paying it down.

Now, when the economy needs that boost from the government, the government cannot afford it. Which is why our recovery has been shit this go around.

There is no possible way we are going to pay it off during the recovery. The only way we can actually afford (I use that term loosely) now is because interest rates are at 25bps. The moment the economy recovers, interest rates aren't going to stay at those levels. The government will have to collect tax revenue just to pay back the interest on the debt. Even if the Government does decide to keep rates low, it'll have to destroy the value of the dollar to do it.

It'll be just like Greece, if not worse.

Comparing this country to Greece puts on display for all to see that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Does anyone have a plan for long term employment recovery?

I do. You might not like it but it's a plan. First of all, people have gotten used to being at home collecting unemployment benefits instead of working. It's human nature because it's much easier to collect a check for a portion of what you are used to making while working than to actually be working. The work environment has changed. There are jobs out there but nobody wants to take them because in most cases they pay less and the hours are not always going to be a 40 hour week. If the government immediately stopped all unemployment benefits people would eventually go back to work doing something in order to provide for themselves. Time to stop being the Nanny State. Get off your duffs and go back to work. Learn to do with less.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Does anyone have a plan for long term employment recovery?

I do. You might not like it but it's a plan. First of all, people have gotten used to being at home collecting unemployment benefits instead of working. It's human nature because it's much easier to collect a check for a portion of what you are used to making while working than to actually be working. The work environment has changed. There are jobs out there but nobody wants to take them because in most cases they pay less and the hours are not always going to be a 40 hour week. If the government immediately stopped all unemployment benefits people would eventually go back to work doing something in order to provide for themselves. Time to stop being the Nanny State. Get off your duffs and go back to work. Learn to do with less.

I agree somewhat, but short term unemployment { 2 ~3 months} is fine, but the past 99 weekers? that was a joke, if they could live off the unemployment for almost 2 years they could of taken a $10 an hour job, during that time.

 

[oldfart]

The unemployment rose as high as 18.4% in 2010. It's now at 13.2% and dropping. Their situation with unemployment is unique, as people were leaving the labor force due to migrating to other EU nations. The decrease in the unemployment rate is merely due to people migrating back because the economy is improving.

I haven't been tracking unemployment in Lithuania by quarter as your graph displayed.
I did find a time series at LITHUANIA GDP GROWTH RATE | LATEST DATA | FORECAST | NEWS. I could not spot the source of the data but it looks to me like it is probably Eurostat. Regardless of time intervals used, there was an uptick in unemployment in 2012 and a drop in growth at the end of 2012, so any positive effects of "austerity" seem to be either second-order or very uneven.

As to emigration and unemployment figures, I fail to see how Lithuania is "unique" as this phenomena is common to all of the smaller economies in the EU periphery. I'm puzzled by your last sentence: I can see in-migration as the economy improves, but why does that explain a decreasing unemployment rate? Isn't a simpler explanation that economic growth lowers unemployment directly and is partially offset by in-migration increasing the labor force?

Finally, you failed to respond to the point that Lithuania had exceptionally strong growth before the economic downturn, and a return to a portion of that growth rate and a higher growth rate than other neighboring countries is not proof of any particular policy on the part of Lithuania as much as it is a testament to Lithuania's strong economic underpinnings to begin with.

During the period of harsh austerity, GDP went on a downward spiral to double digits. Afterwards, it's sustained a period of long lasting prosperity and achieved a growth rate much faster than that of the United States.

The collapse of GDP in Lithuania was truly epic, a 14.8% drop in 2009 (compared to a drop of 4.3% for the EU-27 and Eurozone as a whole, a drop of 3.1% in the US, and a growth of 1.6% for neighboring Poland). Lithuania has outperformed the EU average except in 2009 and 2010, and has outperformed the US growth figures, except for the same two years. Eurostat's growth estimates for Lithuania for 2014 is 3.6%, a percentage point above the US and over two points above the EU average. But countries with smaller economies and lower relative GDP should be growing faster. Lithuania in 2007 had only reached 59% of the EU average GDP (better than the 40% of average in 2000!), Latvia and Estonia did better in that time period (Latvia from 36% to 57%; Estonia from 45% to 70%). And guess what? Lithuania's projected 2014 growth rate is below Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, and Turkey. If Lithuania is the "only" European nation following true austerity, why can't it perform as well as its nearest neighbors? The real positive story has been Poland, since 2000 has NEVER HAD A YEAR OF NEGATIVE GROWTH. If austerity is the key, someone should have told the Poles.

All and all, they've tried austerity. Real classic austerity and they're on a better path than the United States is currently. Which is ironic, the only way the United States can achieve any sort of property through stimulus is if the Government distorts and manipulates Government Data the entire way.

Give me a break! That "Government distorts and manipulates Government Data" line is a lie and an insult. You don't like the data so you cry foul. No responsible person regardless of position would raise that argument. You should be ashamed of yourself.

BTW where do your figures come from? I notice you don't bother to source them. I'm just curious, most folks use Eurostat. Do you regard Eurostat as more reliable, less reliable, or equally reliable than the US statistics? And if you are using statistics from somewhere else than Eurostat, how reliable do you think they are compared to Eurostat?

Austerity has nothing to do with minimum wage increases. You should know this...

Exactly. So how do you know the improvement in growth forecast for 2013 and 2014 is the result of austerity and not the increase in wages? Traditional macrotheory would argue that increasing wages, especially among the lowest paid workers, is a strong stimulus in a depressed economy. It was a big issue in America and Europe in the 1930's. Wage increases and similar measures have a much stronger foundation in economic theory than austerity as a stimulative policy and the historical record and current experience seems to bear this out.

 

[oldfart]

However, there were over 30 recessions in American history. 3 of them were as bad as the Great Depression, and only 1 of them took longer than 4 years for the United States to fully recover.

Guess which recession that is...

I'm curious as to your statistics. The NBER published figures on recessions, and they show the Great Depression as lasting three years and 7 months with a peak to trough fall of 26.7%. Their data series starts in 1854 (before that most economic historians accept the Cleveland Trust Company index of economic activity for 1934--1854). The Panic of 1873 lasted over five years and the ensuing Long Depression even longer, so I think this is the one you are referring to for longevity. Lots of economic historians would classify the longest depression as that of 1815--1821 which lasted six years, which makes two.

What are your three that are "as bad as the Great Depression"? Since only the Panic of 1873, the Copper Panic of 1789, the Depression of 1815--21, and possibly the Recession of 1839--43 were longer than the Great Depression, what measure of severity are you using?

If the measure is peak-to-trough decrease in economic activity, the Great Depression (-26.7%) was exceeded by the Recession of 1836--8 (-32.8%), the Recession of 1839--43 (-34.3%), The Panic of 1873 (-33.6%), the Recession of 1882--5 (-32.8%), the Panic of 1893 (-37.3%), the Panic of 1907 (-29.2%), and the Recession of 1920--1 (-38.1%). These are all NBER numbers except the earliest two which are Cleveland Trust numbers. Just curious.

Jamie

 

[MikeK]

He had alot of help with the aftermath of World war2, and how easy it was to manufacture goods and sell them in the 50~70's.

That frequent argument is countered by the fact that the cost of WW-II created a massive deficit. That along with the cost of helping to rebuild Europe and Japan (Marshal Plan, etc.) fairly compensated for the post-War productivity surge. When all is said and done it was the huge upper-bracket progressive tax rate imposed by FDR and Eisenhower that transformed America into the "Shining city on the hill" that Reagan praised -- but actively sabotaged.

The failure of our existing elected government to emulate the clearly successful economic strategies of previous administrations is plainly responsible for the stagnation which is dissolving the middle class and threatening to transform America into a third world extension of Mexico.

Our elected government, from its phony sonofabitch President on down, is almost totally corrupted by money, channeled to them by the super-rich via so-called PACs. This is why there presently is an effort to reduce Social Security and Medicare while completely ignoring the following outrage:

(Excerpt)

A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. That’s a sum equal to the gross domestic products of the United States and Japan added together. The number may sound unbelievable, but the study was conducted by James Henry, former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, an expert on tax havens and offshoring. It was commissioned by Tax Justice Network, a British activist group.

Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says - Forbes

(Close)

That's twenty-one trillion dollars, the bulk of which belongs to American multi-billionaires and multi-millionaires -- the One Percent!

 

[AmazonTania]

The unemployment rose as high as 18.4% in 2010. It's now at 13.2% and dropping. Their situation with unemployment is unique, as people were leaving the labor force due to migrating to other EU nations. The decrease in the unemployment rate is merely due to people migrating back because the economy is improving.

I haven't been tracking unemployment in Lithuania by quarter as your graph displayed.
I did find a time series at LITHUANIA GDP GROWTH RATE | LATEST DATA | FORECAST | NEWS. I could not spot the source of the data but it looks to me like it is probably Eurostat. Regardless of time intervals used, there was an uptick in unemployment in 2012 and a drop in growth at the end of 2012, so any positive effects of "austerity" seem to be either second-order or very uneven.

As to emigration and unemployment figures, I fail to see how Lithuania is "unique" as this phenomena is common to all of the smaller economies in the EU periphery. I'm puzzled by your last sentence: I can see in-migration as the economy improves, but why does that explain a decreasing unemployment rate? Isn't a simpler explanation that economic growth lowers unemployment directly and is partially offset by in-migration increasing the labor force?

The drop in the unemployment rate is partially due to people migrating out of the country. As the economy gets better, more people migrate back to the country. Unemployment ticks up a bit, and has leveled off at 13% for a year. But the labor force is increase which is a signal of a job market improving. The world bank has the participation rate at 54 percent, on an upward trend. In 2008, the participation rate was last seen at 51.30.

Finally, you failed to respond to the point that Lithuania had exceptionally strong growth before the economic downturn, and a return to a portion of that growth rate and a higher growth rate than other neighboring countries is not proof of any particular policy on the part of Lithuania as much as it is a testament to Lithuania's strong economic underpinnings to begin with.

Lithuania has similar growth trends before and after the recession to that of the United States and other nations. Many things could have attributed to that growth. Most likely asset bubbles. The average growth rate for the US from 2004 to 2007 was 3%. Now from 2009 to 2013 the average is just under 2%. You can't go back to sound economic fundamentals, and expect to keep bubble GDP levels. It doesn't work that way.

The collapse of GDP in Lithuania was truly epic, a 14.8% drop in 2009 (compared to a drop of 4.3% for the EU-27 and Eurozone as a whole, a drop of 3.1% in the US, and a growth of 1.6% for neighboring Poland). Lithuania has outperformed the EU average except in 2009 and 2010, and has outperformed the US growth figures, except for the same two years. Eurostat's growth estimates for Lithuania for 2014 is 3.6%, a percentage point above the US and over two points above the EU average. But countries with smaller economies and lower relative GDP should be growing faster. Lithuania in 2007 had only reached 59% of the EU average GDP (better than the 40% of average in 2000!), Latvia and Estonia did better in that time period (Latvia from 36% to 57%; Estonia from 45% to 70%). And guess what? Lithuania's projected 2014 growth rate is below Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia, and Turkey. If Lithuania is the "only" European nation following true austerity, why can't it perform as well as its nearest neighbors?

Those countries Governments are just spending more money. Slovakia had a 20% increase from Q3 - Q4 in 2012. Turkey had a 23 percent increase at the same time period. Latvia had a 19% increase and Estonia had a 30% increase. Constant that to Lithuania who is only increasing spending by 10%.

You want to get your GDP to grow, just increase Government Consumption. Because, you know, that really makes a difference or anything...

Give me a break! That "Government distorts and manipulates Government Data" line is a lie and an insult. You don't like the data so you cry foul. No responsible person regardless of position would raise that argument. You should be ashamed of yourself.

No need for me to be ashamed, unless it's true. The Government distorts economic data. It's not a secret.

It does it with unemployment. You think any other country in the world uses this U-3, U-5 crap that the BLS uses? They don't. They just calculated the unemployment rate, and that's it. The U-3 is not the real unemployment rate. It's just the unemployment rate the Government wants to look at. It makes structural problems regarding the economy not look as bad.

The Government distorts inflation data, and has been doing it for centuries. In the 1970's, the Government took housing prices out of the CPI and replaced it with rents. In the 1980's, they've introduced a chain-weighted component. In the 90's, they've added something called hedonic adjustments and substitutions, which make inflation hardly detectable. There is really no way inflation today is 2% annually. If anything, inflation (if measured originally) should be very close to the inflation of the 1970's.

And now, the Government is going to distort it's GDP data by including "Intangibles" in the investment side of the GDP metric. Just so the GDP can have a bigger number and growth can appear more robust. Keep in mind, not a single country n the world computes GDP this way. So when you compare another country's GDP to ours, it won't even be an apples to apples comparison.

Manipulating data is the only economic trick the US has under it's hat. People are complaining about unemployment? Change the numbers. People complaining about rising prices? Distort the data. People complaining about the debt to GDP ratio? Make the figures up. Because lying to ourselves will make the problems go away.

BTW where do your figures come from? I notice you don't bother to source them. I'm just curious, most folks use Eurostat. Do you regard Eurostat as more reliable, less reliable, or equally reliable than the US statistics? And if you are using statistics from somewhere else than Eurostat, how reliable do you think they are compared to Eurostat?

I just Googled the Lithuanian unemployment rate. Some sources say different things. Google fiance has it at 13.8% while wikipedia had it as low as 9%, as early as 2012. Eurostat looks like a makeshift Wikipedia page to me, so I don't use it. I have an account at Trading economics, so it goes back as far as I need it to and I can export data to create my own charts. They get their data from all over, IMF, World Bank, Government agencies and CIA.

Exactly. So how do you know the improvement in growth forecast for 2013 and 2014 is the result of austerity and not the increase in wages? Traditional macrotheory would argue that increasing wages, especially among the lowest paid workers, is a strong stimulus in a depressed economy. It was a big issue in America and Europe in the 1930's. Wage increases and similar measures have a much stronger foundation in economic theory than austerity as a stimulative policy and the historical record and current experience seems to bear this out.

The situation with America was different. America was still in the mist of the Depression. Lithuania already recovered. The austerity period already happened. Wage increases were frozen for five years and the first minimum wage was agreed upon in 2012. Whatever reckless policies they choose to enact is up to them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

jobs plan?

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

 

[oldfart]

No need for me to be ashamed, unless it's true. The Government distorts economic data. It's not a secret....

I just Googled the Lithuanian unemployment rate. Some sources say different things. Google fiance has it at 13.8% while wikipedia had it as low as 9%, as early as 2012. Eurostat looks like a makeshift Wikipedia page to me, so I don't use it. I have an account at Trading economics, so it goes back as far as I need it to and I can export data to create my own charts. They get their data from all over, IMF, World Bank, Government agencies and CIA.

Let me see if I have this straight. You get your statistics from a second-hand source without checking them in the original source, because you "like" the second-hand source. But you don't like the "look" of the Eurostat site. And you "know" that US government statistics are cooked.

Where did you get your statistics training again? And have you ever read any of the methodological notes on any of these websites?

 

[Underhill]

jobs plan?

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

Brilliant list.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A lot of the jobs that people with little education or skills that used to pay decent wages have gone to places like China.

Obama's tax incentives should help with that but, while it may seem or be a drop in the bucket, consumers can have a say too.

I just cancelled insurance we had with MetLife because they have a foreign call center.

Someone said we should end certain regulations. That won't do a thing except hurt the little guy. All you have to do is look at profits posted by those corporations to know that. That whole "job killing regulations" lie perpetrated by the Rs has been shown to be nothing more than a dog whistle non-issue.

We all know that President Obama has created jobs every month since being in office. We also know that Rs have filibustered every single jobs bill and have never introduced a jobs bill themselves.

Having all of congress, both sides of congress working toward a mutual goal would surely be a big help.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

jobs plan?

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

Link(s)?

 

[Mr Natural]

jobs plan?

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

Check out small government Special Ed looking to big government solutions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

jobs plan?

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

Brilliant list.

Brilliant response.

 

[TemplarKormac]

jobs plan?

1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

Check out small government Special Ed looking to big government solutions.

Just like you Liberals look to Welfare, HUD, and Food Stamps? Are those not big government "solutions"?